Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fred WALKER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-02-12
Citations: 555 F.3d 1047
Docket Number: No. 04-10616
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fred WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, ROBERT R. BEEZER And RAYMOND C. FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 555
Pages: 1047–1048

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fred WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-10616.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Feb. 12, 2009.
William R. Reed, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Lloyd George Federal Bldg., Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Glynn Burroughs Cartledge, Esq., Law Offices Of Glynn Burroughs Cartledge, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
D.C. No. CR-03-00516-PMP, District of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Before: B. FLETCHER, ROBERT R. BEEZER And RAYMOND C. FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
The language in the statute supporting Walker's sentence is quite different from the provisions construed in the cases cited in Walker's motion. The analysis from those cases is inapplicable to Walker's situation. He therefore has not presented the exceptional circumstances and equities necessary to support the extraordinary remedy of recalling the mandate. See Carrington v. United States, 503 F.3d 888, 891 (9th Cir.2007). Accordingly, Walker's motion to recall the mandate, filed on January 12, 2009, is denied.
I write separately because I believe we lack the power to reach the merits of Walker's motion which seeks to modify a final judgment of this court. We filed our memorandum disposition on May 17, 2006, and the mandate, which returned the case to the district court, issued on June 8, 2006.