Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Gisbert v. U.S. Attorney General

997 F.2d 1122

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1993-08-03
Topic: commercial

PER CURIAM: The Court sua sponte amends its prior judgment and opinion herein, reported at 988 F.2d 1437 (5th Cir.1993), by deleting therefrom all of footnote 5, 988 F.2d at 1440 n. 5, and all of footnote 24, 988 F.2d at 1449 n. 24. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Gisbert v. U.S. Attorney General. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 7 opinions

GISBERT v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,997 F.2d 1122(5th Cir. 1993)

FELIX GONZALEZ GISBERT, ET AL., PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS, v. U.S. ATTORNEY

GENERAL, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE.

No. 91-4477.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

August 3, 1993.

Leo Jerome Lahey, Lafayette, LA, Gary Leshaw, Atlanta Legal Aid Soc., Atlanta, GA, Mark D. Kemple, Karen M. Frederiksen, Los Angeles, CA, David A. Webster, Sumner Hewes, Atlanta, GA, for petitioners-appellants.

Joseph S. Cage, Jr. U.S. Atty., Shreveport, LA, Emily A. Radford, Atty., Lauri S. Filppu,Page 1123Deputy Director, Office of Imm. Lit., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana; F.A. Little, Jr., Judge.

Before GARWOOD, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.^fn*

PER CURIAM:

[1] The Courtsua sponteamends its prior judgment and opinion herein, reported at988 F.2d 1437(5th Cir. 1993), by deleting therefrom all of footnote 5,988 F.2d at 1440n. 5, and all of footnote 24,988 F.2d at 1449n. 24. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Judge John R. Brown was on the panel that heard oral argument in this case, but passed away before the decision was entered, and the panel accordingly acts through a quorum. ↩