Hector Ayala v. Robert Wong
| HECTOR JUAN AYALA |
| ROBERT K. WONG, Warden |
| UNITED MEXICAN STATES |
| 09-99005 |
| May 22, 2009 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Habeas Corpus: Death Penalty |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
 Ayala v. Wong
|
|
HECTOR AYALA V. ROBERT WONG
|
|
HECTOR AYALA V. ROBERT WONG
|
|
HECTOR AYALA V. RONALD DAVIS
|
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
9025795620
Filed order and amended opinion (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, KIM MCLANE WARDLAW and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN). (Dissent to Order by Judge Ikuta; Opinion by Judge Reinhardt; Dissent by Judge Callahan) Amending Disposition Opinion REVERSED AND REMANDED; The opinion and dissenting opinion, filed on September 13, 2013, and published at 730 F.3d 831, are replaced by the amended opinion and amended dissenting opinion filed concurrently with this Order. Judges Reinhardt and Wardlaw voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Callahan voted to grant the petition. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear this matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The request for rehearing en banc is DENIED. No further petitions will be entertained. Judge Ikuta s dissent from denial of rehearing en banc is filed concurrently with this Order. [8990912]--[COURT UPDATE: Replaced order. Reorganized the slip so that the amended opinion and dissent precede the order and dissent. No substantive changes were made. Resent NDA. 02/25/2014 by RY]
|
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.
