United States v. George Rodgers

972 F.2d 1253, 1992 WL 212445

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·Decided September 22, 1992·No. 90-7140·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before KRAVITCH and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and GODBOLD, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The last paragraph of part A of our 28 January 1992 opinion is hereby withdrawn in its entirety. In its place we make this statement:

We see no reason to differ from the conclusion reached in other circuits on this question. The district court erred in assessing the three level increase.

The judgment of the Court and the remainder of the opinion are unchanged.

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

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before KRAVITCH and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and GODBOLD, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The last paragraph of part A of our 28 January 1992 opinion is hereby withdrawn in its entirety. In its place we make this statement:

We see no reason to differ from the conclusion reached in other circuits on this question. The district court erred in assessing the three level increase.

The judgment of the Court and the remainder of the opinion are unchanged.

United States v. George Rodgers, 972 F.2d 1253, 1992 WL 212445 (11th Cir. 1992).

Pincite

972 F.2d 1253 (United States v. George Rodgers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

United States v. Temmis

45 F. Supp. 2d 1305 (M.D. Alabama, 1999)

United States v. Francis Everett Foree and Christina Draznin

43 F.3d 1572 (Eleventh Circuit, 1995)

United States v. David Wayne Holland, Cross-Appellee

22 F.3d 1040 (Eleventh Circuit, 1994)

Opinion

Related