527 F.3d 1359 - Byrd v. Lewis — 527 F.3d 1359

How this case has been cited

17 federal appellate · 16 district · 2 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Timothy Lee Byrd, Coalinga, CA, pro se.

¶2Krista Joy Hart, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

¶3Wanda Hill Rouzan, Mary Jo Graves, Esq., AGCA-Offiee of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.

¶4D.C. No. CV-02-02013-MCE, Eastern District of California, Sacramento.

¶5Before: J. CLIFFORD WALLACE and JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and JANE A. RESTAN!,* Judge.

¶7ORDER

¶8Submission of this ease is WITHDRAWN and DEFERRED pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Pulido v. Chrones, 487 F.3d 669 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 1444, 170 L.Ed.2d 274 (2008). The Court’s framing of the question presented in Pulido suggests that the opinion will clarify how Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999), applies to all defective jury instructions.

¶9The opinion filed on December 11, 2007, published at 510 F.3d 1045, is WITHDRAWN. It may not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit until further order of the Court.