U.S. v. Warren, 75-4368
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before BROWN, Chief Judge, THORNBERRY, COLEMAN, GOLDBERG, AINSWORTH, GODBOLD, CLARK, RONEY, GEE, TJOFLAT, HILL and FAY |
| Citation | 586 F.2d 608 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas A. WARREN, John L. Warren, Jr., Des E. Schick and David DeFina, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Docket Number | No. 75-4368,75-4368 |
| Decision Date | 20 December 1978 |
Page 608
v.
Thomas A. WARREN, John L. Warren, Jr., Des E. Schick and
David DeFina, Defendants-Appellants.
Fifth Circuit.
Michael S. Tarre, Miami, Fla., for Warren.
Daniel S. Pearson, Miami, Fla. (Court-appointed), for J. Warren.
Sky E. Smith, Miami, Fla. (Court-appointed), for DeFina.
Alan M. Medof, Miami, Fla. (Court-appointed), for Schick.
Stewart E. Parsons, Florida State Hospital, Chattahoochee, Fla. (Court-appointed), for T. Warren.
Jack V. Eskenazi, U.S. Atty., Jamie L. Whitten, Asst. U.S. Atty., Miami, Fla., Shirley Baccus-Lobel, Asst. U.S. Atty., Dallas, Tex. (on rehearing), Lewis M. Fischer, Atty., App. Section, Crim. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, THORNBERRY, COLEMAN, GOLDBERG, AINSWORTH, GODBOLD, CLARK, RONEY, GEE, TJOFLAT, HILL and FAY, Circuit Judges. *
Page 609
BY THE COURT:
IT IS ORDERED by the Court that the appellants' petition for rehearing of this case is DENIED as to all issues except the propriety of the application of the concurrent sentence doctrine. See United States v. Warren, 578 F.2d 1058, 1077 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc). The Court reserves disposition of the petition for rehearing on the concurrent sentence issue.
---------------
* Judges Simpson and Morgan were qualified members of the en banc court at the time of submission and the decision en banc in this case. Subsequently, the Omnibus Judgeship Bill, Public Law 95-486, 92 Stat. 1629 (95th Congress) was approved October 20, 1978. In view of this, they did not participate in this decision.
Judges Rubin and Vance were not members of the Court at the time of the submission of this case to the Court en banc and did not desire to participate therein.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Hayes, Crim. No. 79-190.
...case law is dispositive in this matter.1 In United States v. Warren, 578 F.2d 1058, 1064-65 (CA 5 1978) reh. en banc on other grounds, 586 F.2d 608 (CA 5 1978), it "Federal law authorizes the Coast Guard to make inquires, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests upon the h......
-
U.S. v. Whitmire, No. 77-5359
...to assist the coast guard. See, e. g., United States v. Warren, 578 F.2d 1058, 1066-67 (5th Cir.), En banc granted on other grounds, 586 F.2d 608 (1978); United States v. Byrd, 483 F.2d 1196, 1198 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Thompson, 475 F.2d 1359, 1362-63 (5th Cir. 30 United States ......
-
Bloudell v. Wailuku Sugar Co., No. 8474
...of Virgin Islands v. Edinborough, supra; United States v. Warren, 578 F.2d 1058 (5th Cir.1978), reh'g denied, in part, reserved, in part, 586 F.2d 608, reh'g granted, 589 F.2d 254. However, although the exclusion is generally a matter of right, the trial judge retains a measure of discretio......
-
US v. Nezaj, No. 87 Cr. 0152 (RWS).
...defendant at the time of the interrogation. United States v. Warren, 578 F.2d 1058, 1071 (5th Cir.1978) (en banc), reh'g denied in part, 586 F.2d 608 (5th Cir.1978), aff'd en banc in relevant part, 612 F.2d 887 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 956, 100 S.Ct. 2928, 64 L.Ed.2d 815 If these ......
-
United States v. Hayes, Crim. No. 79-190.
...case law is dispositive in this matter.1 In United States v. Warren, 578 F.2d 1058, 1064-65 (CA 5 1978) reh. en banc on other grounds, 586 F.2d 608 (CA 5 1978), it "Federal law authorizes the Coast Guard to make inquires, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests upon the h......
-
U.S. v. Whitmire, 77-5359
...to assist the coast guard. See, e. g., United States v. Warren, 578 F.2d 1058, 1066-67 (5th Cir.), En banc granted on other grounds, 586 F.2d 608 (1978); United States v. Byrd, 483 F.2d 1196, 1198 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Thompson, 475 F.2d 1359, 1362-63 (5th Cir. 30 United States ......
-
Bloudell v. Wailuku Sugar Co., 8474
...of Virgin Islands v. Edinborough, supra; United States v. Warren, 578 F.2d 1058 (5th Cir.1978), reh'g denied, in part, reserved, in part, 586 F.2d 608, reh'g granted, 589 F.2d 254. However, although the exclusion is generally a matter of right, the trial judge retains a measure of discretio......
-
US v. Nezaj, 87 Cr. 0152 (RWS).
...defendant at the time of the interrogation. United States v. Warren, 578 F.2d 1058, 1071 (5th Cir.1978) (en banc), reh'g denied in part, 586 F.2d 608 (5th Cir.1978), aff'd en banc in relevant part, 612 F.2d 887 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 956, 100 S.Ct. 2928, 64 L.Ed.2d 815 If these ......