Case Name: Stephen Wayne ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Arthur CALDERON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-12-21
Citations: 276 F.3d 483
Docket Number: No. 98-99024
Parties: Stephen Wayne ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Arthur CALDERON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: TROTT, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 276
Pages: 483–486

Head Matter:
Stephen Wayne ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Arthur CALDERON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 98-99024.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Filed Dec. 21, 2001
Before: TROTT, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Order; Dissent by Judge Reinhardt
ORDER
Petitioner Anderson has filed with this Court a series of emergency motions asking to reopen this case and to rehear en banc certain claims, all of which relate to our recent opinion in Mayfield v. Wood-ford, 270 F.3d 915 (9th Cir.2001). Anderson asserts that our en banc court's adverse treatment in Mayfield of the performance of Anderson's trial attorney, Donald Ames, casts doubt on our November 17, 2000, decision in this case regarding whether Mr. Ames provided ineffective assistance of counsel to petitioner Anderson. We concluded that Mr. Ames's and his co-counsel's representation of Mr. Anderson did not violate the Sixth Amendment. We then considered a petition to rehear the matter en banc, and the Court voted not to rehear it.
On June 6, 2001, we granted Anderson's motion to stay the mandate until final disposition of his petition for a writ of certio-rari to the United States Supreme Court. On November 13, 2001, the Supreme Court issued its order denying Anderson's petition. See Anderson v. Calderon, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 580, 151 L.Ed.2d 451 (2001). We received formal notification from the Supreme Court of this denial on November 19, 2001.
The panel has voted to deny the emergency renewed petition for rehearing and to deny the petition for rehearing en banc.
The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. An active judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonre-cused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. See Fed. R.App. P. 35(b).
The emergency renewed petitions for rehearing and for rehearing en banc are DENIED.
The mandate previously withheld shall issue forthwith. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(d)(2)(D). No further matters remain pending before this Court.