United States v. Omar Herman Bacca-Beltran, United States of America v. Robert Chemaly
Opinion
764 F.2d 747
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Omar Herman BACCA-BELTRAN, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert CHEMALY, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 82-6161, 83-5065.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
June 6, 1985.
Theodore Sakowitz, Federal Public Defender, Gary S. Pont, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Donna R. Rougeux, Miami, Fla., for O.H. Bacca-Beltran.
Stanley Marcus, U.S. Atty., Linda Collins Hertz, Lawrence H. Sharf, David O. Leiwant, Asst. U.S. Attys., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Rosen & Rosen, P.A., Lawrence N. Rosen, Miami, Fla., for R. Chemaly.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida; Sidney M. Aronovitz and Donald J. Porter, Judges.
ON SUA SPONTE RECONSIDERATION
(Opinion September 20, 1984, 11th Cir., 1984, 741 F.2d 1361 ).
Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, RONEY, TJOFLAT, HILL, FAY, VANCE, KRAVITCH, JOHNSON, HENDERSON, HATCHETT, ANDERSON, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT:
1
On the Court's own motion, and a majority of the judges of this court in active service having voted in favor thereof, 2
It is ORDERED that the order entered December 18, 1984 granting a rehearing en banc in these appeals is hereby VACATED. The opinions of the panel in these causes filed September 20, 1984 are hereby REINSTATED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 14 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- United States v. Ramon Milian-Rodriguez
- United States v. Oswald G. Blake, Leonard Eason
- United States v. Ernesto J. Benevento, Ernest A. Benevento, Earl A. Keller, and Carmine Loiacono
- United States v. Alfonso Hidalgo
- John T. Tukes v. Richard L. Dugger, Secretary, Department of Corrections
- United States v. Luis Enrique Gonzalez
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.