Case ID: f3d_348/html/0789-01.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. Jonathon Marc SUTTER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-50282.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted May 16, 2003.
    Filed Aug. 25, 2003.
    Amended Nov. 4, 2003.
    Ross E. Viselman, San Diego, CA, for the defendant-appellant.
    Roger W. Haines, Jr., and Francisco J. Sanchez, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Criminal Division, San Diego, CA for the plaintiff-appellee.
    Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

The Opinion filed on August 25, 2003 [340 F.3d 1022], is amended as follows:

1) At slip op., p. 11983, paragraph 3, 2d line [340 F.3d at 1027], change “Sutter’s indictment on September 18, 2001” to “Sutter’s arraignment on September 18, 2001.”
2) At slip op., p. 11983, paragraph 3, line 5 [340 F.3d at 1027], change “October 22, 2002” to “October 22, 2001.”
3) At slip op., p. 11992, paragraph 11, line 7 [340 F.3d at 1032], add the words “of the discovery dispute” after “settlement” and before the closing parenthetical.

With these amendments, the panel has unanimously voted to deny appellant’s petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 85.

The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.