U.S. v. Erwin, 94-1766
| Decision Date | 06 March 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-1766,94-1766 |
| Citation | 78 F.3d 232 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James ERWIN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Before: MERRITT, Chief Judge; KENNEDY, MARTIN, MILBURN, NELSON, RYAN, BOGGS, NORRIS, SUHRHEINRICH, SILER, BATCHELDER, DAUGHTREY, MOORE, and COLE, Circuit Judges.
Prior report: 71 F.3d 218.
A majority of the Judges of this Court in regular active service have voted for rehearing of this case en banc. Sixth Circuit Rule 14 provides as follows:
The effect of the granting of a hearing en banc shall be to vacate the previous opinion and judgment of this court, to stay the mandate and to restore the case on the docket sheet as a pending appeal.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the previous decision and judgment of this court is vacated, the mandate is stayed and this case is restored to the docket as a pending appeal.
The Clerk will direct the parties to file supplemental briefs and will schedule this case for oral argument as soon as possible.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Erwin
...instant case, the defendant-appellant should have been released." United States v. Erwin, 71 F.3d 218, 222 (6th Cir.1995), vacated, 78 F.3d 232 (6th Cir.1996). We now hold that the warrantless search of the defendant's vehicle was not unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment because (1) ......
-
United States v. Bennett
...see United States v. Erwin, 71 F.3d 218, 220 (6th Cir. 1995) (collecting cases), vacated for rehearing en banc on other grounds, 78 F.3d 232 (6th Cir. 1996), at least two circuit courts have recognized intra-district transfers under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Nanninga v. T......
-
U.S. v. Sullivan
...that in Robinette. See United States v. Erwin, 71 F.3d 218, 222 (6th Cir.1995) reh'g en banc granted, opinion vacated by circuit rule, 78 F.3d 232 (1996). Yet, the Sixth Circuit explained that it "does not choose to go as far as the Ohio Supreme Court did in [creating a bright-line test] Ro......
-
U.S. v. Rijo
...that in Mesa. That opinion, however, was vacated when the court granted the government's petition to rehear on March 6, 1996. See 78 F.3d 232 (6th Cir.1996). ...