United States v. Steven Lawrence Riley

232 F.3d 844
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·Decided November 20, 2000·No. 99-2426·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

BY THE COURT:

We sua sponte grant rehearing in this appeal. Our opinion is published at 211 F.3d 1207 (11th Cir.2000).

After we filed our opinion in this appeal, but before the mandate issued, the Supreme Court decided Castillo v. United States, 530 U.S. 120, 120 S.Ct. 2090, 147 L.Ed.2d 94 (2000), which casts doubt on the correctness of our ruling rejecting Riley’s challenge to the enhanced penalty the district court imposed on him under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). We accordingly vacate the portion of our prior opinion addressing the § 924(c) sentencing issue and direct the clerk to schedule the appeal for oral argument on that issue before a regular oral-argument panel.

REHEARING GRANTED; OPINION VACATED IN PART; ORAL ARGUMENT GRANTED IN PART.

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

United States v. Steven Lawrence Riley, 232 F.3d 844 (11th Cir. 2000).

232 F.3d 844 (United States v. Steven Lawrence Riley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Leslie Perkins
204 F. App'x 799 (Eleventh Circuit, 2006)
United States v. Maureen Gray
159 F. App'x 172 (Eleventh Circuit, 2006)
United States v. Steven Lawrence Riley
250 F.3d 1303 (Eleventh Circuit, 2001)