United States v. Kismetoglu, 72-1413.
| Decision Date | 05 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1413.,72-1413. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Agop KISMETOGLU, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Larry L. Dier, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Frederick M. Brosio, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
Robert N. Harris, Jr. (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee.
Before BROWNING and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and PLUMMER,* District Judge.
Relying on the court's opinion in United States v. One 1967 Cadillac El Dorado, 453 F.2d 396 (9th Cir. 1971), a per curiam opinion was filed on October 30, 1972, in United States v. Kismetoglu, 468 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir. 1972), affirming the judgment of the district court in United States v. Kismetoglu, 350 F.Supp. 333 (C.D.Cal.1971). In doing so, this court held that in a criminal case where a judgment of acquittal had been ordered after a verdict of guilty by jury, the district court could enjoin the United States and its agents from filing a forfeiture action for an alleged violation of the custom laws.
Subsequently and after due consideration, an order was entered granting appellant's motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing and recall mandate. This order also afforded appellee ten days in which to file a response to the petition to supplement his opposition thereto previously filed. No response has been filed.
Appellant's petition for rehearing is based on a per curiam opinion of the United States Supreme Court, One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States, 409 U.S. 232, 93 S.Ct. 489, 34 L.Ed.2d 438, filed on December 11, 1972, 42 days after the filing of this court's opinion in Kismetoglu, supra. In the Emerald Cut Stones case the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Circuits as to whether a forfeiture is barred under the circumstances presented in this case. In doing so, the Supreme Court resolved the conflict adversely to this court's opinion in United States v. One 1967 Cadillac El Dorado, supra. We are bound to follow the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, the per curiam opinion filed October 30, 1972, in United States v. Kismetoglu, 468 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir. 1972), is hereby withdrawn.
The order of the district court entered October 22, 1971 conditionally granting defendant-appellee's motion for return of property and enjoining the agents of the United States from performing their functions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Standlee v. Rhay
...holding. 2 The holding of One 1967 Cadillac El Dorado was questioned in a subsequent Ninth Circuit decision, United States v. Kismetoglu, 476 F.2d 269 (9th Cir. 1973). However, the holding in Kismetoglu rested on the Supreme Court's determination in One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United Stat......
-
Standlee v. Rhay
...If this case represented the law of this circuit, we might agree with the district court's reliance upon it. But in United States v. Kismetoglu, 476 F.2d 269 (9 Cir.), modifying 468 F.2d 1386 (9 Cir.), cert. dism'd, 410 U.S. 976, 93 S.Ct. 1454, 35 L.Ed.2d 709 (1973), this court indicated th......
-
U.S. v. Yacoubian
...here because we are being asked to review a civil order, even though it was issued in a criminal case. In United States v. Kismetoglu, 476 F.2d 269, 270 n. 1 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. dismissed, 410 U.S. 976, 93 S.Ct. 1454, 35 L.Ed.2d 709 (1973), we held that the government's appeal of......
-
Bryant v. Ford Motor Co.
...it is not unprecedented for a court to recall a mandate to consider a subsequent change in the law. See Zipfel, supra; United States v. Kismetoglu, 476 F.2d 269 (9th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 410 U.S. 976, 93 S.Ct. 1454, 35 L.Ed.2d 709 (1973).7 Bryant correctly notes that in California a plai......