United States v. Harris

165 F.3d 1277, 99 Daily Journal DAR 1213, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 958, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 1492, 1999 WL 46988
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 4, 1999
DocketNos. 97-10418, 96-10416
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 165 F.3d 1277 (United States v. Harris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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. Harris, 165 F.3d 1277, 99 Daily Journal DAR 1213, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 958, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 1492, 1999 WL 46988 (9th Cir. 1999).

Opinions

Order; Dissent by

Judge KOZINSKI.

ORDER

The panel has voted to deny appellants’ petition for rehearing and Judge Schroeder has voted to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Judges Wiggins and Noonan recommend rejection of the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

The full court was advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc. An active judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en bane. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en bane consideration. Fed. R.App. P. 35.

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
165 F.3d 1277, 99 Daily Journal DAR 1213, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 958, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 1492, 1999 WL 46988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-harris-ca9-1999.