USA v. Cordae Black
|Plaintiff - Appellee,:
||UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
|Defendant - Appellant,:
||CORDAE L. BLACK
||January 27, 2011
||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:
|May 2, 2014
Filed Order for PUBLICATION (JOHN T. NOONAN, SUSAN P. GRABER and RAYMOND C. FISHER) (SR dissents) Judge Noonan has voted to grant the petitions for panel rehearing and recommended granting the petitions for rehearing en banc. Judges Graber and Fisher have voted to deny the petitions for panel rehearing. Judge Graber has voted to deny the petitions for rehearing en banc and Judge Fisher has so recommended. The full court was advised of the petitions for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the 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(f). Appellant Cordae L. Black s petition for rehearing en banc (No. 11-10036), filed November 5, 2013, is DENIED. Appellant Angel Mahon s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc (No. 11-10037), filed January 6, 2014, is DENIED. Appellant Kemford J. Alexander s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc (No. 11-10039), filed January 6, 2014, is DENIED. Appellant Terrance L. Timmons petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc (No. 11-10077), filed November 6, 2013, is DENIED. Judge Reinhardt s dissent from denial of rehearing en banc is filed concurrently with this Order.  [11-10036, 11-10037, 11-10039, 11-10077]
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?