Mangini v. United States

319 F.3d 1079, 2003 WL 262196
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided February 10, 2003·No. No. 01-35273·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

The Opinion filed January 9, 2003, is amended as follows:

At Slip Opinion page 227, line 33: delete footnote 2, and replace with a new footnote 2 stating, “Because of the additional evidence that has come to light, [1080]*1080we need not consider whether we would reach a different result were we reviewing Judge Malloy’s decision on the record before him.”
At Slip Opinion page 227, line 25 [after sentence “We also note that the record of Jackson’s contacts with the expert is incomplete .... ”]: add the following sentence, “As the record stands, we find no direct evidence of an intent to deceive Judge Molloy, but nevertheless, Jackson clearly acted as a lawyer in the proceeding and Hoyt & Blewett failed to disclose all the relevant facts.”

With these amendments to the Opinion, the panel has unanimously voted to deny appellee’s petition for a rehearing.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mangini v. United States, 319 F.3d 1079, 2003 WL 262196 (9th Cir. 2003).

319 F.3d 1079 (Mangini v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mangini v. United States
319 F.3d 1079 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)