Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

ALVAREZ-MACHAIN v. U.S., 284 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2002)

Humberto ALVAREZ-MACHAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES ofAmerica; Hector Berellez; Bill Waters; Pete Gruden; Jack Lawn; AntonioGarate-Bustamante; Francisco Sosa, & five unnamed Mexican nationalscurrently in the Fed. witness Prot. program, Defendants-Appellees.Humberto Alvarez-Machain, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Sosa, & fiveunnamed Mexican Nat’ls currently in the Fed. witness protect

Type
Opinion
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2002-03-20
Topic
general

ALVAREZ-MACHAIN v. U.S., 284 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) Humberto ALVAREZ-MACHAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES ofAmerica; Hector Berellez; Bill Waters; Pete Gruden; Jack Lawn; AntonioGarate-Bustamante; Francisco Sosa, and five unnamed Mexican nationalscurrently in the federal witness protection program, Defendants-Appellees.Humberto Alvarez-Machain, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Sosa, and fiveunnamed Mexican nationals currently in the federal witness protectionprogram, Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 99-56762, 99-56880.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed ALVAREZ-MACHAIN v. U.S., 284 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2002). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

ALVAREZ-MACHAIN v. U.S.,284 F.3d 1039(9th Cir. 2002)
Humberto ALVAREZ-MACHAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of
America; Hector Berellez; Bill Waters; Pete Gruden; Jack Lawn; Antonio
Garate-Bustamante; Francisco Sosa, and five unnamed Mexican nationals
currently in the federal witness protection program, Defendants-Appellees.
Humberto Alvarez-Machain, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Sosa, and five
unnamed Mexican nationals currently in the federal witness protection
program, Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 99-56762, 99-56880.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 20, 2002.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge.
ORDER
SCHROEDER, Chief Judge.
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court,1Page 1040it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit, except to the extent adopted by the en banc court.
  1. Judges Reinhardt and Trott were recused. ↩