United States v. Joel Thomas, Jr.
This text of 856 F.3d 624 (United States v. Joel Thomas, Jr.) 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.
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]*625judge 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
856 F.3d 624, 2017 WL 1826622, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-joel-thomas-jr-ca9-2017.