United States v. Jonathon Marc Sutter

348 F.3d 789, 2003 Daily Journal DAR 12059, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 22637, 2003 WL 22479986
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Jonathon Marc Sutter. Read the opinion of the Court — 340 F.3d 1022
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided November 4, 2003·No. 02-50282·Published

Opinion

ORDER

The Opinion filed on August 25, 2003 [340 F.3d 1022], is amended as follows:

1) At slip op., p. 11983, paragraph 3, 2d line [340 F.3d at 1027], change “Sutter’s indictment on September 18, 2001” to “Sutter’s arraignment on September 18, 2001.”
2) At slip op., p. 11983, paragraph 3, line 5 [340 F.3d at 1027], change “October 22, 2002” to “October 22, 2001.”
3) At slip op., p. 11992, paragraph 11, line 7 [340 F.3d at 1032], add the words “of the discovery dispute” after “settlement” and before the closing parenthetical.

With these amendments, the panel has unanimously voted to deny appellant’s petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc.

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. 85.

The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.

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

United States v. Jonathon Marc Sutter, 348 F.3d 789, 2003 Daily Journal DAR 12059, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 22637, 2003 WL 22479986 (9th Cir. 2003).

348 F.3d 789 (United States v. Jonathon Marc Sutter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Jonathon Marc Sutter
340 F.3d 1022 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)