Kevin Miles v. Charles Ryan
|Petitioner - Appellant,:
||KEVIN ARTICE MILES
|Respondent - Appellee,:
||CHARLES L. RYAN
||August 10, 2010
||U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
|Nature of Suit:
||Habeas Corpus: Death Penalty
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:
|March 25, 2013
Filed order and amended opinion (SUSAN P. GRABER, MARSHA S. BERZON and RICHARD C. TALLMAN). Amending Disposition Opinion AFFIRMED; The opinion filed on August 27, 2012, slip op. 9797, and appearing at 691 F.3d 1127, is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 9827, replace lines 6 through 15 with the following: Even though Petitioner has now uncovered, during federal habeas proceedings, some new information that was not presented to the state courts during post-conviction review, that evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that his lawyer s investigation during the state-court proceedings was objectively unreasonable. As detailed above, his counsel conducted an extensive investigation during post-conviction review, obtaining a psychologist to perform further testing and hiring an investigator who visited Petitioner s home town and interviewed many people who knew him and his mother. With this amendment, Judges Graber and Tallman have voted to deny Petitioner-Appellant s petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Berzon has voted to grant the petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc. 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. The majority of the nonrecused active judges failed to vote in favor of en banc rehearing. Petitioner-Appellant s petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or for rehearing en banc shall be entertained. 
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?