United States v. Heon-Cheol Chi

942 F.3d 1159
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Heon-Cheol Chi. Read the opinion of the Court — 936 F.3d 888
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided November 19, 2019·No. 17-50358·Published

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-50358 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:16-cr-00824-JFW-1

HEON-CHEOL CHI, ORDER AMENDING Defendant-Appellant. OPINION

Filed November 19, 2019

Before: Johnnie B. Rawlinson and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges, and Benjamin H. Settle, * District Judge.

ORDER

The opinion filed on August 30, 2019, is amended as follows:

Slip opinion page 21: DELETE . In its place ADD .

* The Honorable Benjamin H. Settle, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation. 2 UNITED STATES V. CHI

The amended sentence shall read, “In another, Chi sent Kinemetrics an email providing them with confidential information about a competing company.”

With the foregoing amendment, the panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judges Rawlinson and Bea have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Settle so recommends.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35.

The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No additional petitions for rehearing will be permitted.

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

United States v. Heon-Cheol Chi, 942 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2019).

942 F.3d 1159 (United States v. Heon-Cheol Chi) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.