United States v. Havelock
619 F.3d 1091
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Havelock. Read the opinion of the Court — 664 F.3d 1284 →
Opinion
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Kurt William HAVELOCK, Defendant-Appellant.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Michael Thomas Morrissey, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Daniel L. Kaplan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ-Federal Public Defender's Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER
KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this *1084 case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
United States v. Havelock, 619 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2011).
619 F.3d 1091 (United States v. Havelock) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
United States v. Kurt Havelock
645 F.3d 1083 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)