Court Opinion

ID: 9466891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:31:49.106487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:01.918647
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
Defendant-appellant’s petition for rehearing having come on to be considered and of the judges of this Court who are in regular active service less than a majority having favored ordering consideration en banc, this petition has been referred to the panel which heard the appeal. Petitioner raises a number of issues in his petition all but one having been considered previously by the panel. This sole issue not previously considered concerns the propriety of the district court’s imposition of a special parole term pursuant to a conspiracy convic*754tion under 21 U.S.C. § 846. See Bifulco v. United States, - U.S. -, 100 S.Ct. 2247, 65 L.Ed.2d -(1980). We conclude that this issue was not properly raised before the court on direct appeal and therefore, cannot be considered in the instant petition for rehearing. Our ruling instantly in no way prejudices petitioner’s ability to move the district court pursuant to Fed. R.Crim.P. 35 to correct an illegal sentence, or to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for relief.
Accordingly, having considered defendant-appellant’s petition and having found no reason to rehear the case,
It is ORDERED that the petition be, and it hereby is denied.