U.S. v. Vontsteen
| Decision Date | 11 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-2745,89-2745 |
| Citation | 919 F.2d 957 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald VONTSTEEN, a/k/a Skip Vontsteen, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
H. Michael Sokolow, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellant.
Paula C. Offenhauser, Asst. U.S. Atty., Henry K. Oncken, U.S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas; David Hittner, Judge.
ON SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
(Opinion August 17, 1990, 5 Cir., 1990, 910 F.2d 187)
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, GEE, POLITZ, KING, JOHNSON, GARWOOD, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DUHE, WIENER and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestion for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,
IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the Court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Vontsteen
... ... In short, any diminution in the defendant's right protected by Pearce is outweighed by gains to the adversary system, judicial economy, and appellate orderliness. Vontsteen asks us to remand so that the district court can reconsider and explain its second sentence in light of Pearce. But Vontsteen could easily have asked for this relief at the sentencing hearing. "The plain error doctrine is designed to avoid just such a circuitous waste of judicial resources." Lopez, 923 ... ...
-
U.S. v. Welch
... ... Id. at 1315. First, the relevant double jeopardy analysis requires us to ask whether the defendant had a " 'legitimate expectation of finality in his original sentence.' " Id. (paraphrasing United States v ... at 919-920), where the defendant at least raised the Pearce vindictiveness argument on appeal ... 5 See United States v. Vontsteen, 910 F.2d 187, 192 (a "presumption of vindictiveness against a trial judge is a serious charge, certainly not one to be made without an extremely ... ...
-
Wood v. State, 90-649
... ... The issue before us is whether the trial court erred in resentencing the defendant by reducing the incarceration period from 15 to 14 years but adding a new 10 years ... See United States v. Vontsteen, 910 F.2d 187, 194 (5th Cir.), reh. granted, 919 F.2d 957 (1990): "The court's authority to retrofit ... ...
- U.S. v. Myers