Case Name: Jimmy D. CARTY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Craig NELSON, Warden; Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-17
Citations: 431 F.3d 1185
Docket Number: No. 03-56766
Parties: Jimmy D. CARTY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Craig NELSON, Warden; Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before PREGERSON, FISHER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 431
Pages: 1185–1186

Head Matter:
Jimmy D. CARTY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Craig NELSON, Warden; Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 03-56766.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 3, 2005.
Filed Oct. 17, 2005.
Amended Dec. 15, 2005.
Matthew D. Brown, CJA, San Francisco, CA (argued); Christopher R.J. Pace, Cooley Goodward LLP, San Diego, CA (briefed), for the petitioner-appellant.
Bradley A. Weinreb, Deputy Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for the respondents-appellees.
Before PREGERSON, FISHER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
At slip op. 14213, change "the San Diego County District Attorney contends" to "the State contends."
With this amendment, the panel has voted to deny the Appellant's petition for panel rehearing and for rehearing en bane, and the panel voted to deny the Appellee's petition for rehearing en banc. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35. The petitions filed by both parties for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc are DENIED.