United States v. Andres Soto
- Area
- civil
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 8 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-50296 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:16-cr-02192-MMA-1 v. Southern District of California, San Diego ANDRES SOTO, ORDER Defendant-Appellant.
Before: WARDLAW and BEA, Circuit Judges, and MURPHY,* District Judge.
The memorandum disposition filed on February 21, 2019 is amended as follows:
On page three of the memorandum disposition, in the paragraph beginning “3. Because Soto was not subject to custodial interrogation,” replace <The district court did not clearly err> with <Reviewing the question de novo, the district court did not err>.
With this amendment, Judges Wardlaw and Bea vote to deny the appellant’s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, and Judge Murphy so recommends. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc.
* The Honorable Stephen Joseph Murphy III, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc is therefore DENIED. No further petitions for panel or en banc rehearing shall be permitted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.