Clarke v. United States
David A. CLARKE v. United States
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
ORDER PER CURIAM.
Appellant’s Suggestion For Rehearing En Banc has been circulated to the full court. The taking of a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the judges of the court in regular active service did not vote in favor of the suggestion. Upon consideration of the foregoing it is
ORDERED, by the Court en banc, that the suggestion is denied and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, by the Court en banc, on its own motion, that the Clerk is directed to further withhold issuance of the mandate herein pending disposition by the en banc Court of appellant’s Suggestion of Mootness and Motion to Vacate.
SENTELLE, Circuit Judge, files a dissenting statement joined by SILBERMAN, WILLIAMS, and D.H. GINSBURG, Circuit Judges.
Dissent
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
SENTELLE, Circuit Judge, joined by SILBERMAN, WILLIAMS, and D.H. GINSBURG, Circuit Judges,
dissenting from the denial of en banc:
While I question the decision of this Court to deny en banc review of the merits of this case, I will not at this time publish a separate statement of the reasons in dissent. I take this tack because in my view our jurisdiction over the case is questionable for the reasons set forth in appellant’s suggestion of mootness. Therefore, pending decision of the mootness motion, I simply reserve my right to file a dissenting opinion on the merits should the final mandate in this case ever issue. That is, I withhold my dissent at present in view of the possibility that the panel opinion may be vacated under United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36 , 71 S.Ct. 104 , 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950), and my need to dissent be erased. However, should the en banc Court determine this matter not to be moot, and should the panel decision stand and the mandate issue, I view it as likely that I will at that time find it necessary to file my separate dissent from the denial of en banc review on the merits.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.