Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. Stacey C. KOON, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee; UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. Laurence M. POWELL, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1995-01-12
Citations: 45 F.3d 1303
Docket Number: Nos. 93-50561, 93-50608, 93-50562 and 93-50609
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. Stacey C. KOON, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. Laurence M. POWELL, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee.
Judges: Before: BROWNING’ and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and FITZGERALD, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 45
Pages: 1303–1310

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. Stacey C. KOON, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. Laurence M. POWELL, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee.
Nos. 93-50561, 93-50608, 93-50562 and 93-50609.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Jan. 12, 1995.
As Amended Feb'. 2, 1995.
Joel Levine, Encino, CA, William J. Kope-ny, Santa Ana, CA, for defendants-appellants-cross-appellees.
Steven D. Clymer, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, CA, Irv Gornstein, Civ. Rights Div., U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, DC, for plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant.
Before: BROWNING’ and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and FITZGERALD, District Judge.
Honorable James M. Fitzgerald, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
ORDER
All of the panel members have voted to deny the petitions for rehearing of both defendants.
Judge BROWNING and Judge FLETCHER have voted to reject the suggestions for rehearing en banc of both defendants and Judge FITZGERALD has so recommended.
The full court was advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc. A judge of the court requested a vote as to whether to take the case en banc. A vote was taken. The request failed to secure the affirmative vote of a majority of the active non-recused members of the court. Judge Trott was recused.
The petitions for rehearing of both defendants are denied and the suggestions for rehearing en banc of both defendants are rejected.