Sepulvado v. Jindal

Fifth Circuit

Sepulvado v. Jindal

739 F.3d 716, 2013 WL 6912820, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25927

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided December 23, 2013·No. No. 13-70007·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

The petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. The court having been polled at the request of one of its members, and a majority of the judges who are in regular active service and not disqualified not having voted in favor (Fed. R.App. P. 35 and 5th Cir. R. .35), the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED.

. In the en banc poll, 4 judges voted in favor of rehearing (Judges King, Dennis, Prado, and Graves), and 11 judges voted •against rehearing (Chief Judge Stewart and Judges Jolly, Davis, Jones, Smith, Clement, Owen, Elrod, South wick, Haynes, and Higginson).

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

PER CURIAM:

ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

The petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. The court having been polled at the request of one of its members, and a majority of the judges who are in regular active service and not disqualified not having voted in favor (Fed. R.App. P. 35 and 5th Cir. R. .35), the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED.

. In the en banc poll, 4 judges voted in favor of rehearing (Judges King, Dennis, Prado, and Graves), and 11 judges voted •against rehearing (Chief Judge Stewart and Judges Jolly, Davis, Jones, Smith, Clement, Owen, Elrod, South wick, Haynes, and Higginson).

Sepulvado v. Jindal, 739 F.3d 716, 2013 WL 6912820, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25927 (5th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

739 F.3d 716 (Sepulvado v. Jindal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related