Legal Opinion
United States v. Contreras
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided February 2, 2010No. 18-36082PublishedCited by 77 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this *1136case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The case is submitted without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
OPINION
2Per curiam
We adopt as our own the three-judge panel’s opinion in United States v. Contreras, 581 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir.2009), except that we do not agree that the three-judge panel had authority to overrule cases decided after the 1993 amendment to the Guidelines. We vacate that portion of the opinion starting with “Notwithstanding Willard or the 1993 amendments ...”…
3Cases cited9 opinions
- United States v. Arthur Howard Hill, AKA Sonny HillCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William A. OPLINGER, Defendant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- United States v. Technic Services, Inc. And Rick RushingCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- United States v. Ronnie Joseph BrickeyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- United States v. Dereck Ricardo HoskinsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by77 opinions
- Sierra Forest Legacy v. ShermanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Molina, M.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
- United States v. LaurientiCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
- United States v. James MathisCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2013
72 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.