TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Oscar Ordonez, German Hernandez Garcia, AKA Jaime Rivera

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar ORDONEZ, German Hernandez Garcia, AKA Jaime Rivera, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Ordonez, 737 F.2d 792 (9th Cir. 1984)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 27, 1984
Docket
Nos. 82-1506, 82-1508
Judges
Alarcon, Norris, East
Citations
737 F.2d 7921984 U.S. App. LEXIS 21060

Opinion

ORDER The court’s opinion in this matter, 722 F.2d 530 , has been amended, as set forth in the attached order filed on this date, to address issues raised in the government’s petition for a rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc. Judge Norris has withdrawn his general concurrence in the court’s opinion and has set forth an expression of his views in a special concurrence. A copy of his special concurrence is attached to this order filed on this date which contains the amendments to the opinion of the court.

** The panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for a rehearing. Judge Alar-con voted to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Judge Norris voted to accept the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Judge East has recommended that the suggestion for rehearing en banc be rejected.

The opinion of the court as revised pursuant to the attached order and Judge Norris’ special concurrence were circulated to the full court on June 5, 1984. The full court was also advised of the suggestion for an en banc hearing and each member received a copy of the government’s petition.

No judge of the court has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed.R.App.P. 35(b).

The petition for a rehearing is denied and the suggestion for a rehearing en banc is rejected.

** EDITOR’S NOTE: As the amendments set forth in the order referred to are incorporated in the amended opinion filed July 11, 1984, and published at 737 E.2d 793, the amending order is not published here.

The special concurrence follows the amended opinion.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1985: 21986: 21987: 11993: 11998: 119852026peak 1985 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Israel Valles-Valencia, United States of America v811 F.2d 1232 (9th Cir. 1987)
  2. United States v. Daniel Marcus Miller753 F.2d 1475 (9th Cir. 1985)
  3. In re D.M.C.503 A.2d 1280 (D.C. 1986)
  4. Van Ryn v. Korean Air Lines640 F. Supp. 284 (C.D. Cal. 1985)
  5. United States v. Millan-Colon836 F. Supp. 1007 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)
  6. United States v. Ference Lang156 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 1998)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Ference Lang156 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 1998)
  2. United States v. Millan-Colon836 F. Supp. 1007 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)
  3. United States v. Israel Valles-Valencia, United States of America v811 F.2d 1232 (9th Cir. 1987)
  4. In re DMC503 A.2d 1280 (D.C. 1986)
  5. In re D.M.C.503 A.2d 1280 (D.C. 1986)
  6. United States v. Daniel Marcus Miller753 F.2d 1475 (9th Cir. 1985)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Ordonez, 722 F.2d 530 (9th Cir. 1983) 17

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list