United States v. Afshari

427 F.3d 646, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 22518
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Afshari. Read the opinion of the Court — 426 F.3d 1150
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided October 20, 2005·No. 02-50355·Published

Opinion

427 F.3d 646

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Hossein AFSHARI, aka Hosseini Deklami; Mohammad Omidvar; Hassan Rezaie; Roya Rahmani, aka Sister Tahmineh; Navid Taj, aka Najaf Eshkoftegi; Mustafa Ahmady; Alireza Mohamad Moradi, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-50355.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

October 20, 2005.

Ronald L. Cheng, Esq., USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, Yoel Tobin, Esq., Douglas N. Letter, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Appellate Staff, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Nadine C. Hettle, Esq., FPDCA—Federal Public Defender's Office (Los Angeles), Anthony Pacheco, Proskauer Rose LLP, Sam S. Puathasnanon, Esq., Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP, David R. Reed, Esq., Law Office of David R. Reed, Richard M. Steingard, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, Michael J. Treman, Esq., Attorney at Law, Santa Barbara, CA, Yolanda M. Barrera, Esq., Monrovia, CA, Abbe David Lowell, Esq., Chadbourne & Parke LLP, Washington, DC, Stephen P. Berzon, Esq., Altshuler Berzon Nussbaum Rubin & Demain, San Francisco, CA, David R. Evans, Esq. Pasadena, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Margaret C. Crosby, Esq., American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, George C. Harris, Esq., Somnath Chatterjee, Esq., Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Ephraim Margolin, Esq., Somnath Chatterjee, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Amici.

Before KLEINFELD, WARDLAW, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The opinion filed June 17, 2005, and appearing at 412 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir.2005), is withdrawn. Pursuant to General Order 5.3.a, an opinion is filed contemporaneously with this order. With the withdrawal of the opinion, the petition for rehearing is granted and petition for rehearing en banc is denied as moot. Subsequent petitions for rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc may be filed. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40 now controls.

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

United States v. Afshari, 427 F.3d 646, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 22518 (9th Cir. 2005).

427 F.3d 646 (United States v. Afshari) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Afshari
427 F.3d 646 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)