U.S. v. Vontsteen, No. 89-2745
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before CLARK, Chief Judge, GEE, POLITZ, KING, JOHNSON, GARWOOD, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DUHE, WIENER and BARKSDALE |
| Citation | 919 F.2d 957 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald VONTSTEEN, a/k/a Skip Vontsteen, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 89-2745 |
| Decision Date | 11 December 1990 |
Page 957
v.
Gerald VONTSTEEN, a/k/a Skip Vontsteen, Defendant-Appellant.
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.
BY THE COURT:
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, No. 89-2745
...), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 801, 112 L.Ed.2d 862 (1991). We granted rehearing en banc to consider Vontsteen's Pearce claim. 919 F.2d 957 (5th Vontsteen argues that the district court's sentence violates due process under North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2......
-
U.S. v. Welch, No. 89-5090
...is reduced, or defendant makes no showing of "actual or apparent vindictiveness by the trial judge"), reh'g en banc granted, 919 F.2d 957 (5th Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 801, 112 L.Ed.2d 862 (1991). See also Kelly v. Neubert, 898 F.2d 15, 17-18 (3rd Cir.1990......
-
Wood v. State, No. 90-649
...to be required in order to justify the addition of probation. 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 a sentence for multicount convictions after some are affirmed, and others are reversed looms......
-
State v. Carpenter, No. 14173
...it is not, application of the presumption of vindictiveness is not required. United States v. Vontsteen, 910 F.2d 187, 192, reh. granted, 919 F.2d 957 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Bay, 820 F.2d 1511, 1513-14 (9th In determining whether the sentence was more severe, "[i]t is the act......
-
U.S. v. Vontsteen, No. 89-2745
...), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 801, 112 L.Ed.2d 862 (1991). We granted rehearing en banc to consider Vontsteen's Pearce claim. 919 F.2d 957 (5th Vontsteen argues that the district court's sentence violates due process under North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2......
-
U.S. v. Welch, No. 89-5090
...the aggregate is reduced, or defendant makes no showing of "actual or apparent vindictiveness by the trial judge"), reh'g en banc granted, 919 F.2d 957 (5th Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 801, 112 L.Ed.2d 862 (1991). See also Kelly v. Neubert, 898 F.2d 15, 17-18 (3rd Cir.......
-
Wood v. State, No. 90-649
...to be required in order to justify the addition of probation. 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 a sentence for multicount convictions after some are affirmed, and others are reversed looms as a......
-
State v. Carpenter, No. 14173
...it is not, application of the presumption of vindictiveness is not required. United States v. Vontsteen, 910 F.2d 187, 192, reh. granted, 919 F.2d 957 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Bay, 820 F.2d 1511, 1513-14 (9th In determining whether the sentence was more severe, "[i]t is the actual e......