United States v. Timothy Dean Smith

405 F.3d 726, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 7173, 2005 WL 957188
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedApril 27, 2005
Docket03-30533
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 405 F.3d 726 (United States v. Timothy Dean Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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. Timothy Dean Smith, 405 F.3d 726, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 7173, 2005 WL 957188 (9th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

ORDER

The court’s opinion filed December 3, 2004, slip op. 16459, and appearing at 390 F.3d 661 (9th Cir.2004), is hereby amended as follows:

1. Line seven on slip op. 16467, after citation to Bonat, 106 F.3d at 1477, insert: “The Supreme Court has recently approved the use of a plea colloquy transcript. See Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 1255, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005).”
2. Line five of slip op. 16471, after “of this mandate,” insert: “The Supreme *727-763 Court has suggested that a court’s reliance on a defendant’s own admissions, as evidenced by a plea transcript, does not implicate the concerns underlying Apprendi. See Shepard, 125 S.Ct. at 1261-62.”

With these amendments, the panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judge Gould and Judge Bea have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Wallace so recommended. 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. 35.

The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No subsequent petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc may be filed.

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

Related

United States v. Merlin Marcia-Acosta
780 F.3d 1244 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Young v. Holder
653 F.3d 897 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Ernesto Martinez-Vazquez
410 F. App'x 28 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Pena-Aguilar
320 F. App'x 603 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Jennings
Ninth Circuit, 2008
United States v. Vidal
Ninth Circuit, 2007
United States v. Julio Almazan-Becerra
456 F.3d 949 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
United States v. Davidson
177 F. App'x 693 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
United States v. Hernandez-Hernandez
431 F.3d 1212 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Laron Kevin Kortgaard
425 F.3d 602 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Kortgaard
Ninth Circuit, 2005
United States v. Striet
146 F. App'x 884 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Cruz-Serrano
135 F. App'x 26 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Fred Nobriga
408 F.3d 1178 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Nobriga
Ninth Circuit, 2005

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
405 F.3d 726, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 7173, 2005 WL 957188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-timothy-dean-smith-ca9-2005.