Narrative Opinion Summary
The Ninth Circuit ordered that the case of United States v. Conrado Sesma-Hernandez be reheard en banc following a majority vote of nonrecused active judges. The prior opinion issued by the three-judge panel is not to be cited as precedent in this case or in any district court within the Ninth Circuit, except for any portions subsequently adopted by the en banc court. Judge Rawlinson was recused from the proceedings.
Legal Issues Addressed
Judicial Recusalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Judge Rawlinson did not participate in the decision to rehear the case en banc due to recusal, demonstrating adherence to ethical standards requiring judges to abstain from cases where impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Reasoning: Judge Rawlinson was recused from the proceedings.
Precedential Status of Panel Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The opinion previously issued by the three-judge panel is not to be used as precedent, highlighting the limited authority of panel decisions when an en banc hearing is granted.
Reasoning: The prior opinion issued by the three-judge panel is not to be cited as precedent in this case or in any district court within the Ninth Circuit, except for any portions subsequently adopted by the en banc court.
Rehearing En Banc Proceduresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Ninth Circuit exercised its authority to rehear the case en banc following a majority vote, which indicates the court's decision to re-evaluate the case with a larger panel of judges.
Reasoning: The Ninth Circuit ordered that the case of United States v. Conrado Sesma-Hernandez be reheard en banc following a majority vote of nonrecused active judges.