United States v. Antonio Santia-Manriquez and Alfredo Santiago-Rodriguez

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Antonio Santia-Manriquez and Alfredo Santiago-Rodriguez

609 F.2d 1162, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 21340

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 15, 1980

Docket78-2940

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 609 F.2d 1162 (United States v. Antonio Santia-Manriquez and Alfredo Santiago-Rodriguez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Antonio Santia-Manriquez and Alfredo Santiago-Rodriguez, 609 F.2d 1162, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 21340 (5th Cir. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM:

The Government has pointed out that United States v. Mclnnis, 601 F.2d 1319, 1323 (5th Cir. 1979), reached a different conclusion than our original opinion in this case, 603 F.2d 575, 577 & n.l (5th Cir. 1979) (per curiam), on whether the thirty-day period during which the Government must file a notice of appeal under Fed.R.App.P. 4(b) begins as of the date of an oral order or as of the date of the written order.

Accordingly, we delete the last two sentences of the first paragraph of the opinion and footnote one. In their place, the following sentences should be inserted at the end of the first paragraph: “On October 4, 1978, the district court handed down a written order embodying its July 28 verbal order, so both appeals are timely under Fed.R. App.P. 4(b). United States v. Mclnnis, 601 F.2d 1319,1323 (5th Cir. 1979). We find the district court’s ruling to be correct and affirm.”

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

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM:

The Government has pointed out that United States v. Mclnnis, 601 F.2d 1319, 1323 (5th Cir. 1979), reached a different conclusion than our original opinion in this case, 603 F.2d 575, 577 & n.l (5th Cir. 1979) (per curiam), on whether the thirty-day period during which the Government must file a notice of appeal under Fed.R.App.P. 4(b) begins as of the date of an oral order or as of the date of the written order.

Accordingly, we delete the last two sentences of the first paragraph of the opinion and footnote one. In their place, the following sentences should be inserted at the end of the first paragraph: “On October 4, 1978, the district court handed down a written order embodying its July 28 verbal order, so both appeals are timely under Fed.R. App.P. 4(b). United States v. Mclnnis, 601 F.2d 1319,1323 (5th Cir. 1979). We find the district court’s ruling to be correct and affirm.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

609 F.2d 1162, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 21340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-antonio-santia-manriquez-and-alfredo-santiago-rodriguez-ca5-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack