United States v. Bonds
| Decision Date | 01 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 11–10669.,11–10669. |
| Citation | 757 F.3d 994 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Barry Lamar BONDS, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Merry Jean Chan, Esquire, Barbara Valliere, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, Jeffrey David Nedrow, Matthew A. Parrella, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Jose, CA, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
Cristina C. Arguedas, Ted W. Cassman, Esquire, Arguedas, Cassman & Headley, LLP, Berkeley, CA, Donald M. Horgan, Dennis P. Riordan, Riordan & Horgan, San Francisco, CA, Allen J. Ruby, Esquire, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Defendant–Appellant.
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35–3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.
Judge Friedland did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Bonds
...and a three-judge panel affirmed. United States v. Bonds, 730 F.3d 890 (9th Cir.2013). We granted en banc rehearing. United States v. Bonds, 757 F.3d 994 (9th Cir.2014).IIA. Title 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a), which defendant was convicted of violating, provides in relevant part as follows: “Whoever......