Court Opinion

ID: 9472237
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:53:52.185893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:49.362866
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
The panel as constituted in the above case has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for a rehearing in banc.
The full court has been advised of the suggestion for an in banc rehearing, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing in banc. FRAP 35(b).
■In response to the petition, we comment on the following two cases:
United States v. Brooksby, 668 F.2d 1102 (CA9 1982), cited by appellee in no way controls this case. The trial court simply overlooked giving an instruction on willfulness, an essential element of the crime. Here, that instruction was included.
The fact that we rely on the entire charge and argument to mitigate the damage that might have been caused by any erroneous part of the instructions is entirely proper. We must consider those matters in the context of the whole trial. United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658, 674-75, 95 S.Ct. 1903, 1912-13, 44 L.Ed.2d 489 (1975); United States v. James, 576 F.2d 223, 227 (CA9 1978).
The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for a rehearing in banc is rejected.