United States v. Samuel Sanchez and Francisco Armendaris

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. Samuel Sanchez and Francisco Armendaris

709 F.2d 1353, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 26708

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedJune 16, 1983

Docket82-5302

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 709 F.2d 1353 (United States v. Samuel Sanchez and Francisco Armendaris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Samuel Sanchez and Francisco Armendaris, 709 F.2d 1353, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 26708 (11th Cir. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Before FAY and VANCE, Circuit Judges, and ALLGOOD * , District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The Petition for Rehearing, insofar as the same is addressed to the panel, 1 is DENIED. A review of the record and the briefs, along with statements made by counsel during oral argument, convinces us that it would have been absolutely futile for the appellees to have raised a elaim of duress or coercion in the administrative proceedings.

1

. Rule 26(F) of our Local Rules provides that, “A suggestion for rehearing en banc will also be treated as a petition for rehearing before the original panel.”

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

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Before FAY and VANCE, Circuit Judges, and ALLGOOD * , District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The Petition for Rehearing, insofar as the same is addressed to the panel, 1 is DENIED. A review of the record and the briefs, along with statements made by counsel during oral argument, convinces us that it would have been absolutely futile for the appellees to have raised a elaim of duress or coercion in the administrative proceedings.

1

. Rule 26(F) of our Local Rules provides that, “A suggestion for rehearing en banc will also be treated as a petition for rehearing before the original panel.”

Dewey L. Lyden, M/v "Born Again" v. Joe D. Howerton, Director of United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, Edward F. O'connor, Harvey W. Carnes and Robert N. Battard, Richard Bruland, Raymond Bruland, Vance Hager, and William Baldwin, Plaintiffs v. Joe D. Howerton, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization Service, Edward F. O'connor, Regional Director of Immigration and Naturalization Service, Harvey W. Carnes, District Director United States Customs Service, and Robert N. Battard, Regional Director United States Customs Service

783 F.2d 1554 (Eleventh Circuit, 1986)

Thomas C. Pollgreen v. Raymond A. Morris, District Director of the United States Immigration & Naturalization Service

770 F.2d 1536 (Eleventh Circuit, 1985)

Pollgreen v. Morris

579 F. Supp. 711 (S.D. Florida, 1984)

William Neal Moore v. Charles Balkcom, Warden, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General

716 F.2d 1511 (Eleventh Circuit, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

709 F.2d 1353, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 26708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-samuel-sanchez-and-francisco-armendaris-ca11-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack