Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cynthia M. STONER, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1998-04-07
Citations: 139 F.3d 1343
Docket Number: No. 94-6377
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cynthia M. STONER, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge and PORFILIO, ANDERSON, TACHA, BALDOCK, BRORBY, EBEL, KELLY, HENRY, BRISCOE, LUCERO and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 139
Pages: 1343–1344

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cynthia M. STONER, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 94-6377.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
April 7, 1998.
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge and PORFILIO, ANDERSON, TACHA, BALDOCK, BRORBY, EBEL, KELLY, HENRY, BRISCOE, LUCERO and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
We granted rehearing en banc in this case on the question:
For statute of limitations purposes, must an indictment charging a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 allege at least one specific overt act occurring within the limitations period established by 18 U.S.C. § 3282?
Because we are evenly divided, we affirm the district court's judgment on this issue. That portion of the panel opinion which addressed this issue and which is found at II.B. of the opinion, United States v. Stoner, 98 F.3d 527, 531-538 (10th Cir.1996), is without precedent. Ohio ex rel. Eaton v. Price, 364 U.S. 263, 263-264, 80 S.Ct. 1463, 1463-1464, 4 L.Ed.2d 1708 (1960); United States v. Rivera, 874 F.2d 754 (10th Cir.1989). The panel opinion is otherwise undisturbed.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.