United States v. Cecil Arnold Odom, A/K/A Bud Kelly

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Cecil Arnold Odom, A/K/A Bud Kelly

895 F.2d 928, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 2366, 1990 WL 7547

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 24, 1990

Docket88-5687

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 895 F.2d 928 (United States v. Cecil Arnold Odom, A/K/A Bud Kelly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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. Cecil Arnold Odom, A/K/A Bud Kelly, 895 F.2d 928, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 2366, 1990 WL 7547 (4th Cir. 1990).

Pincite

Opinions

[929]*929ON PETITION FOR REHEARING WITH SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING IN BANC

ORDER

The appellant’s petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing in banc were submitted to the Court. In a requested poll of the Court, Judges Phillips, Murna-ghan, Sprouse, and Winter voted to rehear the case in banc; and Judges Ervin, Russell, Widener, Hall, Chapman, Wilkinson, and Wilkins voted against rehearing the case in banc. As a majority of the judges voted to deny rehearing in banc, and

As the panel considered the petition for rehearing and is of the opinion that it should be denied, with Judge Murnaghan dissenting,

IT IS ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that the petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing in bane are denied.

Entered at the direction of Judge CHAPMAN, Circuit Judge. MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judge, dissents.

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