Mario Aurelio Ramirez-Ramirez v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General

Ninth Circuit

Mario Aurelio Ramirez-Ramirez v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General

375 F.3d 854, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 13955

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided July 7, 2004·No. 02-73376·Published

Opinions

ORDER

A majority of the panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judge Pregerson voted to grant the petition for rehearing en bane, Judge Tallman voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judge Beezer so recommends.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35.

The mandate shall issue seven days after entry of this order in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(b).

The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.

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

ORDER

A majority of the panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judge Pregerson voted to grant the petition for rehearing en bane, Judge Tallman voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judge Beezer so recommends.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35.

The mandate shall issue seven days after entry of this order in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(b).

The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.

Mario Aurelio Ramirez-Ramirez v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, 375 F.3d 854, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 13955 (9th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

375 F.3d 854 (Mario Aurelio Ramirez-Ramirez v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related