Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

23 F.3d 1497

Docket Nos. 90-10299, 90-10318.

United States v. Pitner

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided May 4, 1994.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1994-05-04

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 1995

5 federal appellate ·

3 counsel of record

Relies on Ratzlaf et Ux United States · United States v. Pitner

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1994-05-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1J. Frank McCabe, Goorjian & McCabe, San Francisco, CA, for defendant-appellant Robert Pitner.

¶2Juliana Drous, Tamburello, Hanlon & Brescianai, San Francisco, CA, for defendant-appellant David Hanson.

¶3*1498Eric J. Swenson, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, CA, for plaintiff-appellee.

¶4Before: HALL and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges, and BURNS,* Senior District Judge.

¶6ORDER

¶7Upon consideration of the Supreme Court’s decision in Pitner v. United States, — U.S.-, 114 S.Ct. 873, 127 L.Ed.2d 70 (1994), and Hanson v. United States, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 873, 127 L.Ed.2d 70 (1994), we hereby withdraw the opinion, see 979 F.2d 156 (9th Cir.1993), and unpublished memorandum, see Nos. 90-10299, 90-10318 (9th Cir. Nov. 2, 1992), in the above-captioned cases.

¶8Further, we reverse and remand the appellants’ cases for a new trial consistent with Ratzlaf v. United States, — U.S.-, 114 S.Ct. 655, 126 L.Ed.2d 615 (1994).

¶9REVERSED and REMANDED.

/23/f3d/1497 · .json · Public domain