Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Fernando Lopez v. Julius Wilson, Warden

Fernando Lopez v. Julius Wilson, Warden, 366 F.3d 430 (6th Cir. 2004)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 2004-04-20
Topic: bankruptcy

A majority of the Judges of this Court in regular active service qualified to participate have voted for rehearing of this ease en banc. Sixth Circuit Rule 35(a) provides as follows: “The effect of the granting of a hearing en banc shall be to vacate the previous opinion and judgment of this court, to stay the mandate and to restore the case on the docket sheet as a pending appeal.” Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that the previous decision and judgment of this court is vacated, the mandate is stayed and this case is restored to the docket as a pending appeal. It is further ORDERED that the appellant file a supplemental brief not later than Thursday, May 20, 2004, and the appellee file a supplemental brief not later than Monday, June 21, 2004. The Clerk will schedule this case for oral argument as directed by the court.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Fernando Lopez v. Julius Wilson, Warden. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 9 opinions

LOPEZ v. WILSON,366 F.3d 430(6th Cir. 2004)

Fernando LOPEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Julius WILSON, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-3875.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 20, 2004.

Robert D. Little, Law Office of Robert Little, Maplewood, NJ, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Douglas R. Cole, Office of the Attorney General of Ohio, Columbus, OH, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: BOGGS, Chief Judge; MARTIN, BATCHELDER, DAUGHTREY, MOORE, COLE, CLAY, GILMAN, GIBBONS, ROGERS, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.^fn*

A majority of the Judges of this Court in regular active service qualified to participate have voted for rehearing of this case en banc. Sixth Circuit Rule 35(a) provides as follows:

"The effect of the granting of a hearing en banc shall be to vacate the previous opinion and judgment of this court, to stay the mandate and to restore the case on the docket sheet as a pending appeal."

Accordingly, it isORDERED,that the previous decision and judgment of this court is vacated, the mandate is stayed and this case is restored to the docket as a pending appeal.

It is furtherORDEREDthat the appellant file a supplemental brief not later than Thursday, May 20, 2004, and the appellee file a supplemental brief not later than Monday, June 21, 2004. The Clerk will schedule this case for oral argument as directed by the court.Page 431

Judge Cook did not participate in this case. ↩