Legal Opinion
United States v. Dolan
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided June 26, 2009No. 08-2104PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.
Appellant’s petition for rehearing is granted sua sponte for the limited purpose of adding the following footnote to the end of section II, page 19:
Mr. Dolan argues that our holding conflicts with United States v. Bedonie, 413 F.3d 1126 (10th Cir.2005). It does no such thing. In Bedonie, we considered whether § 3664(d)(5) authorized the district court to reopen an already entered restitution order sua sponte simply because it had reconsidered the wisdom of its order. We concluded that the MVRA grants the district court no such authority. At the same time, we took…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Bowles v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Kontrick v. RyanSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- United States v. James Daniel Good Real PropertySupreme Court of the United States · 1993
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Dolan v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Sylvain v. Attorney General of the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2013
- United States v. MorelandCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- United States v. Fu Sheng KuoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Sanchez-Penunuri v. LongshoreDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2013
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.