United States v. Ronald Arnold
This text of 12 F.3d 599 (United States v. Ronald Arnold) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ORDER
Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing and supplements thereto filed by the *600 appellant in this matter, it is the determination of the panel that the petition be, and it hereby is, denied.
It is farther ORDERED that the opinion as originally issued and reported at United States v. Maddox, 944 F.2d 1223 (6th Cir.1991) is amended so that column 2, paragraph two, lines 8-15 on page 1233, which now reads:
“Twala Jones testified that she saw him selling drugs at the Sussex and 5409 Kermit drug houses after his eighteenth birthday. Her testimony was corroborated by Dawn Lovett, who testified that she saw him eight or nine times at the 5409 Kermit drug house during the year 1988. She also
should read
“Twala Jones testified that she saw him at various drug houses, including at the Sussex and 5409 Kermit drug houses in 1988. She did not move into the Sussex apartment used as a drug house until on or after the day Arnold turned eighteen. Her testimony was corroborated by Dawn Lovett, who testified that she saw him eight or nine times at the 5409 Kermit drug house during the year 1988. Temace Cummings also ...”
It is SO ORDERED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
12 F.3d 599, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 33338, 1993 WL 532052, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ronald-arnold-ca6-1993.