United States v. Cynthia M. Stoner
This text of 139 F.3d 1343 (United States v. Cynthia M. Stoner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ORDER
We granted rehearing en banc in this case on the question:
For statute of limitations purposes, must an indictment charging a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 allege at least one specific overt act occurring within the limitations period established by 18 U.S.C. § 3282?
Because we are evenly divided, we affirm the district court’s judgment on this issue. *1344 That portion of the panel opinion which addressed this issue and which is found at II.B. of the opinion, United States v. Stoner, 98 F.3d 527, 531-538 (10th Cir.1996), is without precedent. Ohio ex rel. Eaton v. Price, 364 U.S. 263, 263-264, 80 S.Ct. 1463, 1463-1464, 4 L.Ed.2d 1708 (1960); United States v. Rivera, 874 F.2d 754 (10th Cir.1989). The panel opinion is otherwise undisturbed.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
139 F.3d 1343, 1998 WL 163659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-cynthia-m-stoner-ca10-1998.