Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-13-16273/USCOURTS-ca9-13-16273-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of the State of California
Appellee
Darryl Darmont Shirley
Appellant
James A. Yates
Appellee

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DARRYL DARMONT SHIRLEY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

JAMES A. YATES, Warden;

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE

OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 13-16273

D.C. No.

2:07-cv-01800-

AK

ORDER

Filed March 21, 2016

Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, and Stephen

Reinhardt and Morgan Christen, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The opinion filed November 20, 2015, and appearing at

807 F.3d 1090, is hereby amended as follows:

1. Slip op. at 31, line 2–8: remove the sentence: “We do

so, however, bearing in mind that because the defendant’s

prima facie case at Step One supports an inference of

discriminatorymotive, in order to preclude that showing from

prevailing at Step Three there must be sufficient evidence of

the true, nondiscriminatory motive on which the particular

strikes were actually based.”

 Case: 13-16273, 03/21/2016, ID: 9908554, DktEntry: 40, Page 1 of 2
2 SHIRLEY V. YATES

2. Slip op. at 42, line 6–7: replace “prima facie case” with

“evidence” and remove “by a preponderance of the

evidence.”

With these amendments, the panel has voted to deny the

petition for panel rehearing and the 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. 35. 

The petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc are

DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or petitions for

rehearing en banc will be entertained.

 Case: 13-16273, 03/21/2016, ID: 9908554, DktEntry: 40, Page 2 of 2