United States v. Paulk
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
The mandate is recalled. The opinion published on June 24, 2009, and appearing at 569 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir.2009), is amended as follows: on slip opinion page 7708, delete the full paragraph constituting Part II and replace with:
We have jurisdiction to consider Paulk’s appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We recently concluded that we review the discretionary denial of a motion to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Colson, 573 F.3d 915, 916 (9th Cir.2009) (order). Here, however, we are confronted with only the legal question whether the pertinent…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- United States v. HoodCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2009
- United States v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2009
- United States v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2008
- United States v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2008
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- United States v. LeniearCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- United States v. CookCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2010
- Baerbel McKinney-drobnis v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2021
- United States v. Tyrone DavisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
- United States v. Yale AugustineCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.