Steven King Ainsworth, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Arthur Calderon, Warden, Respondent-Appellant. Steven King Ainsworth, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Arthur Calderon, Warden, Respondent-Appellee., 152 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 1998)
Federal Circuits, 9th Cir. (September 08, 1998)
Docket number: 96-9901796-99018
Permanent Link:
http://vlex.com/vid/ainsworth-calderon-37718863
Id. vLex: VLEX-37718863
Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)
Document language
Search in this document
Document options
RSSU.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Bruce Wayne Morris, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeanne Woodford, Acting Warden California State Prison At San Quentin, Respondent-Appellee. Bruce Wayne Morris, Petitioner, v. United States District Court, Eastern District of California (Sacramento), Respondent, Jeanne Woodford, Warden, San Quentin Prison, Real Party in Interest., 273 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2001) Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeanne Woodford, Acting Warden California State Prison At San Quentin, Respondent-Appellee. Bruce Wayne Morris, Petitioner, v. United States District Court, Eastern District of California (Sacramento), Respondent, Jeanne Woodford, Warden, San Quentin Prison, Real Party in Interest.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Jackson Chambers Daniels, Jr., Petitioner-Appellee, v. Jeanne S. Woodford, Warden, of California State Prison At San Quentin, Respondent-Appellant. Jackson Chambers Daniels, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeanne S. Woodford, Warden, of California State Prison At San Quentin, Respondent-Appellee., 428 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2005) Jr., Petitioner-Appellee, v. Jeanne S. Woodford, Warden, of California State Prison At San Quentin, Respondent-Appellant. Jackson Chambers Daniels, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeanne S. Woodford, Warden, of California State Prison At San Quentin, Respondent-Appellee.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Richard A. Leavitt, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Arvon J. Arave, Warden, Idaho State Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellant. Richard A. Leavitt, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Arvon J. Arave, Warden, Idaho State Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee., 371 F.3d 663 (9th Cir. 2004) Petitioner-Appellee, v. Arvon J. Arave, Warden, Idaho State Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellant. Richard A. Leavitt, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Arvon J. Arave, Warden, Idaho State Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Richard A. Leavitt, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Arvon J. Arave, Warden, Idaho State Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellant. Richard A. Leavitt, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Arvon J. Arave, Warden, Idaho State Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee., 383 F.3d 809 (9th Cir. 2004) Petitioner-Appellee, v. Arvon J. Arave, Warden, Idaho State Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellant. Richard A. Leavitt, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Arvon J. Arave, Warden, Idaho State Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - LEAVITT V ARAVE (9th Cir. 2004)
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; Lawrence K. Karlton, Chief District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-90-00329-LKK/PAN.
Before: BROWNING, LEAVY, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.ORDERThe opinion filed March 10, 1998 [138 F.3d 787] is amended as follows: (1) at Slip Op. page 2136 [138 F.3d at 789], delete the last sentence of the first paragraph of the opinion which reads, "We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions to deny the writ" and substitute "We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions to deny the writ as to Ainsworth's guilt phase claims and for further proceedings on his penalty phase claims" and (2) at Slip Op. page 2156 [138 F.3d at 797], add the following sentence as the last sentence of the opinion: "REMANDED for further proceedings on Ainsworth's penalty phase claims."The panel has voted to deny the petitioner's request to file a reply to the response to the petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc. With the opinion amended as stated above, the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judges Browning and Trott have voted to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc, and Judge Leavy so recommended. The full court has been advised of the en banc suggestion and no judge of the court has requested a vote on it. The petition for rehearing is DENIED and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is REJECTED.Try vLex for FREE for 3 days
Access legal information from United States including:
- Constitutions
- Forms and Contracts
- Legal Books and Journals
- Case Law
- News and Business
- Regulations
- U.S. Code
Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.
3
days of Free Access
