United States v. Joel Thomas, Jr.

856 F.3d 624, 2017 WL 1826622, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8122
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided May 8, 2017·No. 14-10427·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

Dissent by Judge WALLACE

ORDER

A majority of the panel has voted to GRANT rehearing, in part. The Supreme Court recently considered whether the existence of a mandatory minimum sentence under § 924(c) impacts the analysis under § 3553(a). It said “[njothing in § 924(c) restricts the authority conferred on sentencing courts by § 3553(a) and the related provisions to consider a sentence imposed under § 924(c) when calculating a just sentence for the predicate count.” Bean v. United States, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1170, 1176-77, 197 L.Ed.2d 490 (2017). In light of this intervening authority, the sentence imposed by the district court is VACATED and the matter REMANDED for reconsideration in light of Dean. The petition for rehearing is otherwise DENIED.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no [625] judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35.

The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. Further petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc shall not be entertained.

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

United States v. Joel Thomas, Jr., 856 F.3d 624, 2017 WL 1826622, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8122 (9th Cir. 2017).

856 F.3d 624 (United States v. Joel Thomas, Jr.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related