From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Hamm

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Unit A
Apr 23, 1981
644 F.2d 354 (5th Cir. 1981)

Opinion

Nos. 80-1315, 80-1331.

April 23, 1981.

Edward D. Foreman, Pros. Atty., Thomas E. Reynolds, St. Petersburg, Fla., for defendant-appellant.

William C. Bryson, Peter E. Scheer, Attys., Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee.

Randy Schaffer, Houston, Tex., for Washington.

Melvyn C. Bruder, Dallas, Tex., for Butler Evans (Fuller).

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Joe J. Fisher, Judge.

Before BROWN, COLEMAN, AINSWORTH, CHARLES CLARK, GEE, RUBIN, GARZA, REAVLEY, POLITZ, RANDALL, TATE, SAM D. JOHNSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC [2] (Opinion March 2, 1981, 5 Cir., 638 F.2d 823)


A majority of the Judges in active service, on the Court's own motion, having determined to have this case reheard en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the Court en banc on briefs without oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.


Summaries of

United States v. Hamm

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Unit A
Apr 23, 1981
644 F.2d 354 (5th Cir. 1981)
Case details for

United States v. Hamm

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ROBERT HAMM…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Unit A

Date published: Apr 23, 1981

Citations

644 F.2d 354 (5th Cir. 1981)

Citing Cases

United States v. Hamm

Nos. 80-1315, 80-1331.March 2, 1981. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Granted. See 644 F.2d 354. Edward D.…

United States v. Hamm

A panel of this court held that the district court erred in denying the Government's motion to dismiss the…