From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Lam

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 4, 2001
262 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2001)

Summary

finding that a delay of approximately 14 1/2 months weighed "slightly" in favor of the defendant in a Barker analysis

Summary of this case from United States v. Reyes

Opinion

No. 99-10463.

Argued and Submitted October 30, 2000.

Filed June 4, 2001. Amended August 22, 2001.

Judy Clarke, Executive Director, Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington and Idaho, Spokane, Washington; Quin Denver, Federal Defender, Mary French, Asst. Federal Defender, John P. Balazs, Asst. Federal Defender, Sacramento, California, for the defendant-appellant.

Paul L. Seave, United States Attorney, Kenneth J. Melikian, Assistant United States Attorney, R. Stephen Lapham, Assistant United States Attorney, Sacramento, California, for the Plaintiff-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; William Shubb, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-97-0054-WBS.

Before: B. Fletcher, O'Scannlain and Gould, Circuit Judges.


ORDER

The panel unanimously votes to deny the petition for rehearing except that it directs that two corrections pointed out in the petition be made:

At slip op. 6888, the first sentence in the second full paragraph is deleted and the following substituted in its stead:

"Lam was retried on the same indictment. The Government on December 18, 1998 filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty."

At slip op. 6893, delete the text of footnote 7 and place in its stead:

"Staniels was appointed counsel from the Federal Defenders Office of the Eastern District of California."

The clerk is directed to re-file the opinion with the indicated corrections.

Judges O'Scannlain and Gould vote to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judge B. Fletcher so recommends.

The petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc has been circulated to the full court and no active member of the court has voted for rehearing.

The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.


Summaries of

United States v. Lam

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 4, 2001
262 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2001)

finding that a delay of approximately 14 1/2 months weighed "slightly" in favor of the defendant in a Barker analysis

Summary of this case from United States v. Reyes

finding defendant bound by his attorney's actions in having sought several continuances, but noting that defendant can preserve his rights to a speedy trial when he expressly asserts his rights and his actions contradict his counsel's

Summary of this case from Bovensiep v. Borders

attributing responsibility for delay in trial to a petitioner's counsel and also finding that "such responsibility rightfully accrues to [the petitioner]"

Summary of this case from Robles-Castro v. Ryan
Case details for

United States v. Lam

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tanh Huu LAM…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 4, 2001

Citations

262 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2001)

Citing Cases

Whitney v. State

While the circumstances may have been beyond the appellant's actual control to some degree, these delays…

Usa. v. Murillo

[2] A delay of thirteen months between arrest and trial is "presumptively prejudicial" and triggers a Barker…