United States v. Christopher Mateen

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Christopher Mateen. Read the opinion of the Court — 806 F.3d 857
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·Decided April 9, 2014·No. 12-4481·Unknown

Opinion

No. 12—4481

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

FILED Apr 09, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk

) Plaintiff-Appellant,

V. ORDER

CHRISTOPHER J. MATEEN,

Defendant—Appellee.

vvvvvvvvv

BEFORE: BATCHELDER, Chief Judge; BOGGS, MOORE, COLE, CLAY, GIBBONS, ROGERS, SUTTON, COOK McKEAGUE, GRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE, WHITE, STRANCH, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.

A majority of the Judges of this Court In regular active service have voted for rehearing of this case en banc. Sixth Circuit Rule 35(b) provides as follows:

“The effect of the granting of a hearing en banc shall be to vacate the previous

opinion and judgment of this court, to stay the mandate and to restore the case

on the docket sheet as a pending appeal.”

Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that the previous decision and judgment of this court is

vacated, the mandate is stayed and this case is restored to the docket as a pending appeal.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Wm

Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk

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

United States v. Christopher Mateen, (6th Cir. 2014).

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