Legal Opinion
United States v. Aviles
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided August 18, 1998No. Nos. 96-10110, 96-10167, 97-10251, 97-10289PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
The opinion filed on August 18, 1998 is amended as follows:
153 F.3d at 937, sec.6, ¶ 2: Remove the third sentence and “On the other hand,” from the fourth sentence and insert, “Yet, talcing into account all the factors in the application, an impartial judge could not have denied the application on the ground that the necessity for the wiretap had not been shown.”
Id. at 938: Under “Compliance With Speedy Trial Act” replace ¶ beginning “On these premises” and the calculations that follow with:
On these premises there were eight hundred and forty-seven excludable days. The Speedy Trial Act…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Henderson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- United States v. Ronald Foster JacobsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1993
- United States v. Darrel Paterson Simpson, Robert MacRiner Anderson, and James Roy FreemanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- United States v. Raoul Barrie ClymerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- United States v. Rick Paul SpringerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- United States v. James Daychild, United States of America v. Patrick O. NeissCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- United States v. Jonathon Marc SutterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- United States v. OberoiCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2008
- 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1847, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2397 United States of America v. Salvador Aviles, United States of America v. Miguel Angel Barrenechea, United States of America v. Rafael Cornejo, United States of America v. Carlos A. PerezCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- United States v. Kim WalkerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013