Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Warren

586 F.2d 608

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1978-12-20
Topic
bankruptcy

BY THE COURT: IT IS ORDERED by the Court that the appellants’ petition for rehearing of this case is DENIED as to all issues except the propriety of the application of the concurrent sentence doctrine. See United States v. Warren, 578 F.2d 1058, 1077 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc). The Court reserves disposition of the petition for rehearing on the concurrent sentence issue.

Citator

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

Authority status
pending
Cited by
2 opinions
UNITED STATES v. WARREN,586 F.2d 608(5th Cir. 1978)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. THOMAS A. WARREN, JOHN L.
WARREN, JR., DES E. SCHICK AND DAVID DeFINA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
No. 75-4368.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
December 20, 1978.
Michael S. Tarre, Miami, Fla., for Warren.

Daniel S. Pearson, Miami, Fla. (Court-appointed), for J. Warren.

Sky E. Smith, Miami, Fla. (Court-appointed), for DeFina.

Alan M. Medof, Miami, Fla. (Court-appointed), for Schick.

Stewart E. Parsons, Florida State Hospital, Chattahoochee, Fla. (Court-appointed), for T. Warren.

Jack V. Eskenazi, U.S. Atty., Jamie L. Whitten, Asst. U.S. Atty., Miami, Fla., Shirley Baccus-Lobel, Asst. U.S. Atty., Dallas, Tex. (on rehearing), Lewis M. Fischer, Atty., App. Section, Crim. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida; William O. Mehrtens, District Judge.
[1] ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, THORNBERRY, COLEMAN, GOLDBERG, AINSWORTH, GODBOLD, CLARK, RONEY, GEE, TJOFLAT, HILL and FAY, Circuit Judges.fn*Page 609
BY THE COURT:
[2] IT IS ORDERED by the Court that the appellants' petition for rehearing of this case is DENIED as to all issues except the propriety of the application of the concurrent sentence doctrine.See United States v. Warren,578 F.2d 1058,1077(5th Cir. 1978) (en banc). The Court reserves disposition of the petition for rehearing on the concurrent sentence issue.
  1. Judges Simpson and Morgan were qualified members of the en banc court at the time of submission and the decision en banc in this case. Subsequently, the Omnibus Judgeship Bill, Public Law95-486,92 Stat. 1629(95th Congress) was approved October 20, 1978. In view of this, they did not participate in this decision.

    Judges Rubin and Vance were not members of the Court at the time of the submission of this case to the Court en banc and did not desire to participate therein. ↩