United States v. Cynthia M. Stoner

139 F.3d 1343, 1998 WL 163659
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit·Decided April 7, 1998·No. 94-6377·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

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

United States v. Cynthia M. Stoner, 139 F.3d 1343, 1998 WL 163659 (10th Cir. 1998).

139 F.3d 1343 (United States v. Cynthia M. Stoner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. McGill
359 F. App'x 56 (Tenth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Cooper
283 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (D. Kansas, 2003)
United States v. Welch
198 F.R.D. 545 (D. Utah, 2001)
United States v. Thompson
125 F. Supp. 2d 1297 (D. Kansas, 2000)