Earl Cannedy, Jr. v. Darrel Adam
|Petitioner - Appellee,:
||EARL EUGENE CANNEDY, Jr.
|Respondent - Appellant,:
||DARRELL G. ADAMS, Warden
||November 30, 2009
||U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
|Nature of Suit:
We have the following opinions for this case:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|July 16, 2013
Filed order (ANDREW J. KLEINFELD, CARLOS F. LUCERO and SUSAN P. GRABER) The opinion filed February 7, 2013, and published at 706 F.3d 1148, is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 12, line 14 and the last line, change 2003 to 2004. Judges Lucero and Graber have voted to deny Appellant s petition for panel rehearing, and Judge Kleinfeld has voted to grant it. Judge Graber has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, Judge Lucero makes no recommendation, and Judge Kleinfeld has recommended granting it. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge of the court called for a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. A vote was taken, and a majority of the nonrecused active judges failed to vote in favor of en banc rehearing. Appellant s petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc shall be entertained. O SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge, joined by TALLMAN, BYBEE, CALLAHAN, BEA, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc: AFFIRMED 
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?