Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. James Wells

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided December 19, 2017No. 14-30146, 15-30036Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partTashima, Circuit Judge

Although I concur in the rest of the opinion, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to reassign the case on remand. As the majority acknowledges, we reassign a case only in “rare and extraordinary circumstances.” Krechman v. Cty. of Riverside, 723 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Air-Sea Forwarders, Inc. v. Air Asia Co., Ltd., 880 F.2d 176, 191 (9th Cir. 1989)). The circumstances here were neither rare nor extraordinary.

At sentencing, the district judge undoubtedly used, strong language. For example, the judge said, “[T]here’s one thing that’s absolutely clear to me…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Air-Sea Forwarders, Inc. v. Air Asia Company, Ltd., and E-Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
  2. United States v. Timothy Wolf ChildCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
  3. United States v. Truong Quang QuachCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
  4. United States v. Stephen JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
  5. Benvin v. United States District Court (In Re Benvin)Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API