Stephen Wayne Anderson v. Arthur Calderon, Warden

Ninth Circuit

Stephen Wayne Anderson v. Arthur Calderon, Warden

276 F.3d 483, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 50, 2001 Daily Journal DAR 13243, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 27082, 2001 WL 1669707

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 21, 2001

Docket98-99024

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 276 F.3d 483 (Stephen Wayne Anderson v. Arthur Calderon, Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stephen Wayne Anderson v. Arthur Calderon, Warden, 276 F.3d 483, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 50, 2001 Daily Journal DAR 13243, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 27082, 2001 WL 1669707 (9th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinions

Order; Dissent by Judge Reinhardt

ORDER

Petitioner Anderson has filed with this Court a series of emergency motions asking to reopen this case and to rehear en banc certain claims, all of which relate to our recent opinion in Mayfield v. Wood-ford, 270 F.3d 915 (9th Cir.2001). Anderson asserts that our en banc court’s adverse treatment in Mayfield of the performance of Anderson’s trial attorney, Donald Ames, casts doubt on our November 17, 2000, decision in this case regarding whether Mr. Ames provided ineffective assistance of counsel to petitioner Anderson. We concluded that Mr. Ames’s and his co-counsel’s representation of Mr. Anderson did not violate the Sixth Amendment. We then considered a petition to rehear the matter en banc, and the Court voted not to rehear it.

On June 6, 2001, we granted Anderson’s motion to stay the mandate until final disposition of his petition for a writ of certio-rari to the United States Supreme Court. On November 13, 2001, the Supreme Court issued its order denying Anderson’s petition. See Anderson v. Calderon, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 580, 151 L.Ed.2d 451 (2001). We received formal notification from the Supreme Court of this denial on November 19, 2001.

The panel has voted to deny the emergency renewed petition for rehearing and to deny the petition for rehearing en banc.

The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. An active judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonre-cused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. See Fed. R.App. P. 35(b).

The emergency renewed petitions for rehearing and for rehearing en banc are DENIED.

The mandate previously withheld shall issue forthwith. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(d)(2)(D). No further matters remain pending before this Court.

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

Order; Dissent by Judge Reinhardt

ORDER

Petitioner Anderson has filed with this Court a series of emergency motions asking to reopen this case and to rehear en banc certain claims, all of which relate to our recent opinion in Mayfield v. Wood-ford, 270 F.3d 915 (9th Cir.2001). Anderson asserts that our en banc court’s adverse treatment in Mayfield of the performance of Anderson’s trial attorney, Donald Ames, casts doubt on our November 17, 2000, decision in this case regarding whether Mr. Ames provided ineffective assistance of counsel to petitioner Anderson. We concluded that Mr. Ames’s and his co-counsel’s representation of Mr. Anderson did not violate the Sixth Amendment. We then considered a petition to rehear the matter en banc, and the Court voted not to rehear it.

On June 6, 2001, we granted Anderson’s motion to stay the mandate until final disposition of his petition for a writ of certio-rari to the United States Supreme Court. On November 13, 2001, the Supreme Court issued its order denying Anderson’s petition. See Anderson v. Calderon, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 580, 151 L.Ed.2d 451 (2001). We received formal notification from the Supreme Court of this denial on November 19, 2001.

The panel has voted to deny the emergency renewed petition for rehearing and to deny the petition for rehearing en banc.

The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. An active judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonre-cused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. See Fed. R.App. P. 35(b).

The emergency renewed petitions for rehearing and for rehearing en banc are DENIED.

The mandate previously withheld shall issue forthwith. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(d)(2)(D). No further matters remain pending before this Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 F.3d 483, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 50, 2001 Daily Journal DAR 13243, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 27082, 2001 WL 1669707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephen-wayne-anderson-v-arthur-calderon-warden-ca9-2001.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack