Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Williams

828 F.2d 1

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1987-09-08
Topic
general

ON MOTION TO CORRECT „ THE RECORD Before GEE and HILL, Circuit Judges, and HUNTER, District Judge.* PER CURIAM: On consideration of the motion of appellant, Vance E. Williams, to correct the record and prepare a supplemental record, IT IS ORDERED that the record is corrected to reflect that, contrary to the Court’s statement in its opinion that "Appellant Vance E. Williams did not contend on appeal for a reversal for prejudicial publicity ... [or] adopt the arguments of his co-appellants” to that effect, he did in fact do so in a motion granted by the Clerk and overlooked by the Court. As he did so, and since his situation as regards mid-trial publicity is factually indistinguishable from that of appellant Oscar Silva, he must receive the same treatment of the Court. It is therefore ordered that, as to appellant Vance E.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Williams. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
9 opinions
UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS,828 F.2d 1(5th Cir. 1987)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. DRAKE WILLIAMS, VANCE E.
WILLIAMS, OSCAR SILVA, EDWARD ORELLANA, MICHAEL SAHS, JOSEPH C. WATSON, JAN
E. GROSSMAN, SALVADOR MERAZ, AND TANNY MILLER, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
No. 85-2588.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
September 8, 1987.
Certiorari Denied October 19, 1987.
David H. Berg, Joel Androphy, Houston, Tex., for Drake Williams.

Clyde W. Woody, Houston, Tex., for Vance Williams.

Dick DeGuerin, Houston, Tex., for Oscar Silva.

Robert S. Bennett, Houston, Tex., for Edward Orellana.

Michael E. Tigar, Austin, Tex., for Michael Sahs.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas; James DeAnda, Judge.

(Opinion January 29, 5th Cir. 1987,809 F.2d 1072.)
ON MOTION TO CORRECT THE RECORD
Before GEE and HILL, Circuit Judges, and HUNTER, District Judge.fn*
PER CURIAM:
[1] On consideration of the motion of appellant, Vance E. Williams, to correct the record and prepare a supplemental record,

[2] IT IS ORDERED that the record is corrected to reflect that, contrary to the Court's statement in its opinion that "Appellant Vance E. Williams did not contend on appeal for a reversal for prejudicial publicity . . . [or] adopt the arguments of his co-appellants" to that effect, he did in fact do so in a motion granted by the Clerk and overlooked by the Court.

[3] As he did so, and since his situation as regards mid-trial publicity is factually indistinguishable from that of appellant Oscar Silva, he must receive the same treatment of the Court.

[4] It is therefore ordered that, as to appellant Vance E. Williams, rehearing is GRANTED, the mandate is recalled, his convictions are REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the relief granted Oscar Silva in our earlier opinions.
  1. District Judge of the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. ↩