United States v. Bernard Seidling

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Bernard Seidling. Read the opinion of the Court — 737 F.3d 1155 →

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit·Decided December 16, 2013·No. 13-1854·Published

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

December 16, 2013

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, District Judge

No. 13-1854

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States Plaintiff-Appellee, District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 3:11-cr-00126-bbc-1

BERNARD C. SEIDLING, Defendant-Appellant. Barbara B. Crabb, Judge.

ORDER

The opinion issued in the above-entitled case on December 16, 2013, is hereby amended as follows:

Page 13, line 13, first full paragraph: Although Seidling “entered a plea of guilty” should be changed to: Although Seidling “stipulated to the facts”.

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

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

December 16, 2013

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, District Judge

No. 13-1854

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States Plaintiff-Appellee, District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 3:11-cr-00126-bbc-1

BERNARD C. SEIDLING, Defendant-Appellant. Barbara B. Crabb, Judge.

ORDER

The opinion issued in the above-entitled case on December 16, 2013, is hereby amended as follows:

Page 13, line 13, first full paragraph: Although Seidling “entered a plea of guilty” should be changed to: Although Seidling “stipulated to the facts”.

United States v. Bernard Seidling, (7th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

United States v. Bernard Seidling (United States v. Bernard Seidling) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.