Suntharalinkam v. Keisler

Ninth Circuit

Suntharalinkam v. Keisler

506 F.3d 822, 2007 WL 3171437

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided October 31, 2007·No. 04-70258·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinions

ORDER

The order for publication filed October 18, 2007, is hereby withdrawn and replaced with the attached order for publication. The dissent remains as originally filed.

ORDER

The petitioner’s unopposed Motion to Withdraw his Petition for Review is GRANTED. The government requests that dismissal be conditioned on vacatur of the panel opinion, which we agree is appropriate in the circumstances of this case. FRAP 42(b). The government also requests that the dismissal be conditioned on an award of court costs, which we decline to do. Therefore, the Petition for Review is DISMISSED. The panel opinion, reported at 458 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir.2006), is VACATED. Each party shall bear its own costs.

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

ORDER

The order for publication filed October 18, 2007, is hereby withdrawn and replaced with the attached order for publication. The dissent remains as originally filed.

ORDER

The petitioner’s unopposed Motion to Withdraw his Petition for Review is GRANTED. The government requests that dismissal be conditioned on vacatur of the panel opinion, which we agree is appropriate in the circumstances of this case. FRAP 42(b). The government also requests that the dismissal be conditioned on an award of court costs, which we decline to do. Therefore, the Petition for Review is DISMISSED. The panel opinion, reported at 458 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir.2006), is VACATED. Each party shall bear its own costs.

Suntharalinkam v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 822, 2007 WL 3171437 (9th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

506 F.3d 822 (Suntharalinkam v. Keisler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related