USA v. Sundeep Dharni

USA v. Sundeep Dharni

Plaintiff - Appellee,:	UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant,:	SUNDEEP DHARNI
Case Number:	11-16438
Filed:	June 7, 2011
Court:	U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit:	Vacate Sentence

Opinions

We have the following opinions for this case:

Date Filed	Description
January 3, 2014	United States v. Dharni
July 2, 2014	USA V. SUNDEEP DHARNI
October 6, 2015	USA V. SUNDEEP DHARNI

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
July 2, 2014	Filing 9026167732 Filed Order for PUBLICATION (J. CLIFFORD WALLACE, RAYMOND C. FISHER and MARSHA S. BERZON) (JCW Dissenting) Appellant Sundeep Dharni s petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED. The previous opinion, United States v. Dharni, 738 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2014), is VACATED. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED AS MOOT. (SEE ORDER FOR FULL TEXT) We VACATE submission of this case, and retain jurisdiction over this appeal pending the district court s disposition of this limited remand. The parties shall notify the court within seven days of entry of the district court s order. We shall determine at that time whether the case requires supplemental briefing or can be resubmitted on the existing briefs and arguments. See, e.g., Espinosa v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 530 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam); Eyak Native Village v. Daley, 375 F.3d 1218, 1219 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (order). Petition for panel rehearing GRANTED; previous opinion VACATED; petition for rehearing en banc DENIED AS MOOT; SUBMISSION VACATED; REMANDED FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE. [9153488]

Date Filed

Document Text

July 2, 2014

Filing 9026167732 Filed Order for PUBLICATION (J. CLIFFORD WALLACE, RAYMOND C. FISHER and MARSHA S. BERZON) (JCW Dissenting) Appellant Sundeep Dharni s petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED. The previous opinion, United States v. Dharni, 738 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2014), is VACATED. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED AS MOOT. (SEE ORDER FOR FULL TEXT) We VACATE submission of this case, and retain jurisdiction over this appeal pending the district court s disposition of this limited remand. The parties shall notify the court within seven days of entry of the district court s order. We shall determine at that time whether the case requires supplemental briefing or can be resubmitted on the existing briefs and arguments. See, e.g., Espinosa v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 530 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam); Eyak Native Village v. Daley, 375 F.3d 1218, 1219 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (order). Petition for panel rehearing GRANTED; previous opinion VACATED; petition for rehearing en banc DENIED AS MOOT; SUBMISSION VACATED; REMANDED FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE. [9153488]

Access additional case information on PACER

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.

Search for this case: USA v. Sundeep Dharni
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff - appellee,: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Represented By:	R. Steven Lapham
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant - appellant,: SUNDEEP DHARNI
Represented By:	Sundeep Dharni
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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?