Case Name: Jeffrey Timothy LANDRIGAN, a.k.a. Billy Patrick Wayne Hill, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dora B. SCHRIRO, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-04
Citations: 501 F.3d 1147
Docket Number: No. 00-99011
Parties: Jeffrey Timothy LANDRIGAN, a.k.a. Billy Patrick Wayne Hill, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dora B. SCHRIRO, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: MARY M. SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HARRY PREGERSON, STEPHEN REINHARDT, ALEX KOZINSKI, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS, KIM McLANE WARDLAW, W. FLETCHER, MARSHA S. BERZON, RICHARD R. CLIFTON, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN and CARLOS T. BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 501
Pages: 1147–1147

Head Matter:
Jeffrey Timothy LANDRIGAN, a.k.a. Billy Patrick Wayne Hill, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dora B. SCHRIRO, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 00-99011.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 4, 2007.
Dale A. Baich, Esq., Federal Public Defenders Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Kent E. Cattani, Esq., Office of the Attorney General Civil Division, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: MARY M. SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HARRY PREGERSON, STEPHEN REINHARDT, ALEX KOZINSKI, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS, KIM McLANE WARDLAW, W. FLETCHER, MARSHA S. BERZON, RICHARD R. CLIFTON, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN and CARLOS T. BEA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
The mandate, issued on May 8, 2006, is recalled. In light of the Supreme Court's mandate, issued on July 30, 2007, in Schriro v. Landrigan, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1933, 167 L.Ed.2d 836 (2007), we vacate our en banc decision, Landrigan v. Schriro, 441 F.3d 638 (9th Cir.2006), and affirm the district court's denial of an evidentiary hearing on Landrigan's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We again adopt the three-judge panel's holdings with respect to the additional sentencing issues raised on appeal, Landrigan v. Stewart, 272 F.3d 1221, 1229-31 (9th Cir.2001). Therefore, the district court's denial of Landrigan's petition for writ of habeas corpus is AFFIRMED.