Narrative Opinion Summary
The case of United States v. Juan Ramon Matta-Ballesteros was reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The court issued an amended opinion, rectifying previous inaccuracies in the description of the defendant's criminal record, specifically noting that the defendant was convicted solely for escape, not for narcotics-related charges. Additionally, the court modified statements concerning the timeline of events, specifying the defendant had been under observation since January 4, 1993. The amendments were also reflected in the concurring opinion. The panel unanimously denied the petition for rehearing and rejected the suggestion for an en banc rehearing. Judges Browning and Noonan voted against considering the case en banc, while Judge Poole supported it, though no active judge called for a vote. Consequently, the motions for rehearing and en banc consideration were denied, finalizing the court's decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Amendments to Judicial Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Ninth Circuit amended its opinion to correct factual inaccuracies regarding the defendant's prior convictions and the timeline of events.
Reasoning: The amendments include corrections to the description of the defendant's prior convictions, clarifying that he was convicted only for escape in the Northern District of Florida, rather than for various narcotics charges and escape.
Denial of Petition for Rehearingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court unanimously decided to deny the petition for rehearing and rejected the suggestion for rehearing en banc.
Reasoning: The panel unanimously voted to deny the petition for rehearing and rejected the suggestion for rehearing en banc, with Judges Browning and Noonan explicitly voting against the en banc consideration, while Judge Poole expressed support for such a recommendation.
Rehearing en Banc Proceduressubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Despite a judge's support for an en banc rehearing, the absence of a majority vote led to the denial of the en banc suggestion.
Reasoning: No active judge sought a vote on the en banc rehearing, leading to the final decision to deny the petition and reject the en banc rehearing suggestion.