Case Name: Stanmore Cawthon COOPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; Social Security Administration; United States Department of Transportation, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-22
Citations: 622 F.3d 1016
Docket Number: No. 08-17074
Parties: Stanmore Cawthon COOPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; Social Security Administration; United States Department of Transportation, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: MYRON H. BRIGHT, HAWKINS, and MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 622
Pages: 1016–1035

Head Matter:
Stanmore Cawthon COOPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; Social Security Administration; United States Department of Transportation, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-17074.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Jan. 13, 2010.
Filed Feb. 22, 2010.
Amended Sept. 16, 2010.
Raymond A. Cardozo, Tiffany Renee Thomas, James M. Wood, and David J. Bird, Reed Smith LLP, for plaintiff-appellant Stanmore Cawthon Cooper.
Michael F. Hertz, Joseph P. Russoniello, Mark B. Stern, and Samantha Chaifetz, for defendants-appellees, Federal Aviation Administration, Social Security Administration, and United States Department of Transportation.
Before: MYRON H. BRIGHT, HAWKINS, and MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judges.
The Honorable Myron H. Bright, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
Order; Concurrence to Order by Judge MILAN D. SMITH, JR.; Dissent to Order by Judge O'SCANNLAIN; Opinion by Judge MILAN D. SMITH, JR.
ORDER
The opinion filed February 22, 2010, and published at 596 F.3d 538, is hereby amended by deleting footnote 2 (and renumbering succeeding footnotes) on pages 2825-26 of the slip opinion (also found at 596 F.3d 538, 543-44).
With this amendment, the panel votes to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judge M. Smith votes to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judges Bright and Hawkins so recommend.
The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. After a request for a vote by an active judge, a vote was taken, and a majority of the active judges of the court failed to vote for a rehearing en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35(f).
The petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc are DENIED. Further petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc shall not be entertained.