Court Opinion

ID: 9928321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 16:02:11.047232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:44:54.240998
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-3009      Document: 010110992761          Date Filed: 01/31/2024      Page: 1
                                                                                        FILED
                                                                            United States Court of Appeals
                                          PUBLISH                                   Tenth Circuit

                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            January 31, 2024

                                                                               Christopher M. Wolpert
                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                                Clerk of Court
                          _________________________________

  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,
                                                                 No. 22-3009
  v.                                                  (D.C. No. 2:19-CV-02082-JAR-JPO
                                                          2:12-CR-20003-JAR-3 and
  STEVEN M. HOHN,                                         2:19-CV-02491-JAR-JPO)
                                                                   (D. Kan.)
        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                                       ORDER
                          _________________________________

 Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, MATHESON,
 BACHARACH, PHILLIPS, MCHUGH, EID, CARSON and
 ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.*
                     _________________________________

        Following the September 18, 2023 oral argument in this matter, a poll was called

 to consider whether this matter should be heard and decided by the en banc court in the

 first instance. A majority of the active judges of the court voted in favor of initial hearing

 en banc, and the poll carried.

        Judge Rossman has written separately in dissent. Judge Rossman’s dissental is

 joined by Judge Bacharach.

        *
         The Honorable Nancy L. Moritz and the Honorable Richard E. N. Federico are
 recused in this matter.
Appellate Case: 22-3009      Document: 010110992761         Date Filed: 01/31/2024       Page: 2

        Although this entire case will be heard en banc, the parties shall address the

 following questions in supplemental briefs:

        A.     Did Shillinger v. Haworth, 70 F.3d 1132 (10th Cir. 1995) correctly hold
               that it is structural error for the government to purposefully intrude without
               legitimate justification into the attorney-client relationship and that
               prejudice must be presumed?

        B.     When, if ever, does the government unjustifiably intrude into the attorney-
               client relationship by intentionally obtaining attorney-client
               communications that are not privileged?

        Appellant’s supplemental brief shall be filed within 30 days of the date of this

 order, and shall be limited to 25 pages in length in a 13- or 14-point font. Within three

 business days of the electronic filing of Appellant’s supplemental brief, 16 hard copies

 must be received in the Office of the Clerk. Within 30 days of the filing of Appellant’s

 supplemental brief, Appellee shall file a supplemental response brief subject to the same

 limitations. Sixteen hard copies of Appellee’s supplemental brief must be received in the

 Clerk’s Office within three business days of the brief’s electronic filing. Within 14 days

 of the electronic filing of Appellee’s supplemental response brief, Appellant may file a

 supplemental reply brief. The supplemental reply brief shall be limited to 10 pages in

 length in a 13- or 14-point font. Like the primary supplemental briefs, 16 hard copies of

 the supplemental reply brief must be received in the Clerk’s Office within three business

 days of the brief’s electronic filing.

        The court anticipates setting this matter for hearing on the May 2024 oral

 argument calendar. Therefore, motions for extension of time are strongly discouraged.

                                               2
Appellate Case: 22-3009    Document: 010110992761        Date Filed: 01/31/2024    Page: 3

 The parties will be advised of the date and time of oral argument when the court’s May

 2024 calendar is set.

                                             Entered for the Court,

                                             CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

                                            3
Appellate Case: 22-3009   Document: 010110992761   Date Filed: 01/31/2024   Page: 4

 United States v. Hohn, No. 22-3009

 ROSSMAN, Circuit Judge, joined by BACHARACH, Circuit Judge,
 dissenting from the grant of sua sponte initial en banc review.

       This appeal was briefed, argued before a panel of this court, and

 submitted for decision in September 2023. Now, without the benefit of a

 panel decision and with no request from the parties, the majority has

 ordered this appeal to be “heard and decided by the en banc court in the

 first instance.” En banc review is “an extraordinary procedure.” 10th Cir.

 R. 35.1(A); see also Fed. R. App. P. 35(a) (en banc review “is not favored”).

 Initial en banc is rarer still, let alone sua sponte initial en banc

 consideration. The court is taking a highly unusual step.

       In my view, it is a mistake to bypass the norms of our appellate

 process. A panel opinion in this matter, particularly here after briefing and

 oral argument, would aid the dispositional process and help all stakeholders

 assess the suitability of en banc consideration. Moreover, no party

 requested initial en banc consideration or had reason yet to seek en banc

 review. A litigation choice of such consequence belongs to litigants, not

 courts. Adherence to the well-settled “principle of party presentation”

 counsels strongly against the majority’s sua sponte decision. Greenlaw v.

 United States, 554 U.S. 237, 243 (2008). I respectfully dissent.