William Holland v. United States

D.C. Circuit

William Holland v. United States

343 F.2d 287, 120 U.S. App. D.C. 5

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 18, 1964

Docket18400

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 343 F.2d 287 (William Holland v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

William Holland v. United States, 343 F.2d 287, 120 U.S. App. D.C. 5 (D.C. Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of appellant’s motion for leave to file his lodged petition for rehearing en banc, it is

ORDERED by the court en banc that appellant’s aforesaid motion be granted and the Clerk is directed to file appellant’s lodged petition for rehearing en banc, and on consideration whereof, it is

FURTHER ORDERED by the court en banc that appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc is denied.

BAZELON, Chief Judge, would grant appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc. .See his dissenting statement in Hardy and Ferguson v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C.-, 343 F.2d 233.

FAHY, Circuit Judge, did not participate in the foregoing order in so far as it pertains to the denial of appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc.

WRIGHT, Circuit Judge, did not participate in the foregoing order.

WILBUR K. MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge, prior to his retirement on October 15, 1964, voted to deny appellant’s aforesaid motion and petition.

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