Court Opinion

ID: 9414571
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 00:45:10.559789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:28.128895
License: Public Domain

DENNIS, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I acquiesce in the panel majority’s conclusion that it is bound by the recent panel decision in United States v. Sanchez-Ruedas, 452 F.3d 409, 412-14 (5th Cir.2006). Strictly construed, however, it appears to me that we are bound by the panel decision in United States v. Torres-Diaz, 438 F.3d 529, 536-37 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1487, 164 L.Ed.2d 264 (2006), and by the various opinions from the California courts interpreting that state’s statute, which would, together, have required a different result here. See, particularly, People v. Colantuono, 7 Cal.4th 206, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 908, 865 P.2d 704, 709 (1994), and People v. Williams, 26 Cal.4th 779, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 114, 29 P.3d 197, 204 (2001). Accordingly, it appears that en banc reconsideration of both this decision and Sanchez-Ruedas may be appropriate.