United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stanley Mills Stanert, Defendant-Appellant., 769 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir. 1985)

Federal Circuits, 9th Cir. (August 28, 1985)

Docket number: 84-5128

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/america-stanley-mills-stanert-defendant-38430775
Id. vLex: VLEX-38430775

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Sponsored Ads:

RSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Notice: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 Provides that Dispositions Other Than Opinions or Orders Designated for Publication Are Not Precedential and Should Not Be Cited Except When Relevant Under the Doctrines of Law of the Case, Res Judicata, or Collateral Estoppel. Darrell L. Bailey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael Hennessey, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees., 961 F.2d 216 (9th Cir. 1992)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Jorge F. Martinez, Petitioner-Appellant, v. United States Parole Commission, Respondent-Appellee., 5 F.3d 537 (9th Cir. 1993)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Notice: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 Provides that Dispositions Other Than Opinions or Orders Designated for Publication Are Not Precedential and Should Not Be Cited Except When Relevant Under the Doctrines of Law of the Case, Res Judicata, or Collateral Estoppel. James Dean Bingman, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jack Mccormick, Warden Montana State Prison; Candice Hilyer; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees., 972 F.2d 1337 (9th Cir. 1992)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7837, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,977 Evan Arthur Hook, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. State of Arizona, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants., 98 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 1996)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Notice: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 Provides that Dispositions Other Than Opinions or Orders Designated for Publication Are Not Precedential and Should Not Be Cited Except When Relevant Under the Doctrines of Law of the Case, Res Judicata, or Collateral Estoppel. Segundo A. Unpingco; Pacific Equity and Capital Enterprises Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Baba Corporation; Northern Development Corporation; Macau-Hong Kong Corporation; Paul Bordallo, Defendants-Appellees., 968 F.2d 1222 (9th Cir. 1992)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Notice: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 Provides that Dispositions Other Than Opinions or Orders Designated for Publication Are Not Precedential and Should Not Be Cited Except When Relevant Under the Doctrines of Law of the Case, Res Judicata, or Collateral Estoppel. Adrian Lee Chow, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Deborah A. Delambert, Defendant-Appellee., 972 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir. 1992)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Big Meadows Grazing Association, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, By and Through; Ann M. Veneman, in Her Capacity as Secretary of the Department of Agriculture; Shirley Gammon, in Her Capacity as State Conservationist (for the State of Montana) With the Natural Resources and Conservation Service, an Agency of the Department of Agriculture, Defendants-Appellees., 344 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2003)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Notice: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 Provides that Dispositions Other Than Opinions or Orders Designated for Publication Are Not Precedential and Should Not Be Cited Except When Relevant Under the Doctrines of Law of the Case, Res Judicata, or Collateral Estoppel. Frederick Rach, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee., 961 F.2d 216 (9th Cir. 1992)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Notice: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 Provides that Dispositions Other Than Opinions or Orders Designated for Publication Are Not Precedential and Should Not Be Cited Except When Relevant Under the Doctrines of Law of the Case, Res Judicata, or Collateral Estoppel. Cedric R. Allen, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert G. Borg; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees., 955 F.2d 47 (9th Cir. 1992)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Notice: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 Provides that Dispositions Other Than Opinions or Orders Designated for Publication Are Not Precedential and Should Not Be Cited Except When Relevant Under the Doctrines of Law of the Case, Res Judicata, or Collateral Estoppel. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lyons Plastering, Inc,; Charles Marion Heers; Betty R. Daddato; Charles Michael Heers, Jr.; Jesse Heers, and as Assignees for Larry and Jacqueline Lyons, Individually as Husband and Wife, Defendant-Appellants., 974 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir. 1992) Res Judicata, or Collateral Estoppel. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lyons Plastering, Inc,; Charles Marion Heers; Betty R. Daddato; Charles Michael Heers, Jr.; Jesse Heers, and as Assignees for Larry and Jacqueline Lyons, Individually as Husband and Wife, Defendant-Appellants.

See all citations to this document

Text:

Roger W. Haines, Jr., Maria T. Arroryo-Tabin, Asst. U.S. Attys., San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Craig E. Weinerman, San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

Before GOODWIN, POOLE, and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The opinion in this case, which was filed June 5, 1985, 762 F.2d 775, is amended by adding a footnote 1 at the end of the third full paragraph in Part III, at p. 780, beginning, "In his motion for an evidentiary hearing before the district judge. . . ." Footnote 1 shall read:

The question whether a defendant has made a sufficient preliminary showing to entitle him to a Franks [v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978)] hearing is reviewable de novo. United States v. Ritter, 752 F.2d 435, 439 (9th Cir. 1985).

As amended, the panel has unanimously voted to deny the petition for rehearing. The mandate shall issue in accordance with Fed.R.App.P. 41(a).

Sponsored Ads:

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

Home / United States /

Case Law

vlex /