United States v. James Wells
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
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
- Air-Sea Forwarders, Inc. v. Air Asia Company, Ltd., and E-Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- United States v. Timothy Wolf ChildCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- United States v. Truong Quang QuachCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- United States v. Stephen JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
- 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.