Court Opinion

ID: 9482673
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:57:05.059445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:07.844264
License: Public Domain

ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
PER CURIAM:
Tooker, Bao Tran, Scott, and DeBrophy, appellants, all petition the court for a rehearing. The petitioners’ arguments were all made in the original briefs to this court, and we reject them for the reasons stated in the panel opinion.
Petitioners point out a transposition in the original panel opinion. The opinion states:
“Both DeBrophy and Scott contend that, because their letter of intent to Gessner described an agreement to sell Gessner ‘Basmati rice,’ there is no evidence that either intended to sell Vietnamese rice in violation of the law.
United States v. Tooker, at 1216 (emphasis added). This passage transposed DeBro-phy’s and Scott’s names with Gessner’s. Accordingly, the sentence should be altered to read *:
“Both DeBrophy and Scott contend that, because Gessner’s letter of intent to De-Brophy and Scott described an agreement to sell Gessner ‘Basmati rice,’ there is no evidence that either DeBrophy or Scott intended to sell Vietnamese rice in violation of the law.”
This typographical error has no effect on the court’s reasoning or result. The appellants’ petition is meritless.
The court’s opinion will be AMENDED as specified in this order. The petitions for rehearing are DENIED and no member of this panel nor judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Local Rule 35) the Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.

 Editor’s Note: The opinion has been corrected for bound volume publication.