Case ID: f3d_298/html/1021-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Steven HITCHCOCK, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-10251.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted May 15, 2001.
    Submission Withdrawn May 21, 2001.
    Resubmitted Aug. 23, 2001.
    Opinion Withdrawn Sept. 26, 2001.
    
      Amended Opinion Filed March 21, 2002.
    
    Second Amendment Filed Aug. 2, 2002:
    Sarah Courageous, Honolulu, Hawai'i, for the defendant-appellant
    Loretta Sheehan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, Hawai'i, for the plaintiff-appellee.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, CANBY and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Initially this appeal was submitted following oral argument on May 15, 2001. The panel issued an order withdrawing submission pending the outcome in United States v. Anto-nakeas, 255 F.3d 714 (9th Cir,2001). Anto-nakeas was decided prior to our filing of the original opinion. Subsequent to filing the original opinion on August 23, 2001, we withdrew the opinion on September 26, 2001, pending the en banc opinion in United States v. Buckland, 277 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir.2002). That opinion was filed January 18, 2002. We now file our amended opinion.
    
   ORDER

The Amended Opinion United States v. Hitchcock, 286 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir.2002), filed March 21, 2002, is amended as follows:

At 286 F.3d at 1073, amend the last two sentences in the paragraph before the "Conclusion" to read:

"Hitchcock's argument is foreclosed by Harris v. United States, - U.S. 122 S.Ct. 2406, 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002), and our prior precedent. It is now clear that mandatory minimums do not implicate Apprendi. Id."

The mandate shall issue forthwith.