United States v. Sebert

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Sebert

906 F.3d 1082

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 16, 2018

DocketNo: 17-2771

StatusPublished

This text of 906 F.3d 1082 (United States v. Sebert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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. Sebert, 906 F.3d 1082 (8th Cir. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. The petition for rehearing by the panel is also denied.

Judge Kelly did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter. GRASZ, Circuit Judge, concurring with the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.

For the reasons set forth in my concurring opinion in United States v. Sebert , 899 F.3d 639, 641-42 (8th Cir. 2018) (Grasz, J., concurring), I find the Petition for Rehearing En Banc to be based on sound legal reasoning. However, in light of the Government's Response, the Petition does not present a question of exceptional importance justifying rehearing en banc. The Government represents that the district court has begun using revised special condition language and that "it anticipates that the revised condition will be imposed in future cases." Government's Resp. to Def.'s Pet. for Reh'g En Banc at 5. Consequently, there is no pressing need for en banc consideration of the issue presented.

/s/ Michael E. Gans

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

The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. The petition for rehearing by the panel is also denied.

Judge Kelly did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter. GRASZ, Circuit Judge, concurring with the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.

For the reasons set forth in my concurring opinion in United States v. Sebert , 899 F.3d 639, 641-42 (8th Cir. 2018) (Grasz, J., concurring), I find the Petition for Rehearing En Banc to be based on sound legal reasoning. However, in light of the Government's Response, the Petition does not present a question of exceptional importance justifying rehearing en banc. The Government represents that the district court has begun using revised special condition language and that "it anticipates that the revised condition will be imposed in future cases." Government's Resp. to Def.'s Pet. for Reh'g En Banc at 5. Consequently, there is no pressing need for en banc consideration of the issue presented.

/s/ Michael E. Gans

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

906 F.3d 1082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-sebert-ca8-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack