From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kesser v. Cambra

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 14, 2005
425 F.3d 1230 (9th Cir. 2005)

Opinion

Nos. 02-15475, 01-17467.

October 14, 2005.

D.C. Nos. CV-96-03452-PJH, CV-97-01407-PJH.

William Weiner, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Catherine A. Rivlin, Esq., Michael E. Banister, DAG, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Stephen B. Bedrick, Esq., Oakland, CA, for Amicus California Appellate Defense Counsel.

David M. Porter, Esq., Federal Public Defender's Sacramento, CA, for Amicus National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

John T. Philipsborn, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Amicus California Attorneys for Criminal Justice.

Jennifer Gayle Leahy, Chowchilla, CA, pro se.

Michael E. Banister, DAG, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge.


ORDER

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that these cases be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion in Kesser v. Cambra, No. 02-15475, 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.


Summaries of

Kesser v. Cambra

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 14, 2005
425 F.3d 1230 (9th Cir. 2005)
Case details for

Kesser v. Cambra

Case Details

Full title:Richard Craig KESSER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Steven J. CAMBRA, Jr.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 14, 2005

Citations

425 F.3d 1230 (9th Cir. 2005)

Citing Cases

Kesser v. Cambra

Oct. 26, 2001) (unpublished disposition). We affirmed the district court in a divided decision, Kesser v.…

Williams v. Runnels

371 F.3d at 1090 (footnote omitted). Our determination that we must apply a de novo standard of review…