United States v. Cynthia M. Stoner
Opinion
ORDER
We granted rehearing en banc in this case on the question:
For statute of limitations purposes, must an indictment charging a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 allege at least one specific overt act occurring within the limitations period established by 18 U.S.C. § 3282?
Because we are evenly divided, we affirm the district court’s judgment on this issue. *1344 That portion of the panel opinion which addressed this issue and which is found at II.B. of the opinion, United States v. Stoner, 98 F.3d 527, 531-538 (10th Cir. 1996), is without precedent. Ohio ex rel. Eaton v. Price, 364 U.S. 263, 263-264, 80 S.Ct. 1463, 1463-1464, 4 L.Ed.2d 1708 (1960); United States v. Rivera, 874 F.2d 754 (10th Cir. 1989). The panel opinion is otherwise undisturbed.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cynthia M. STONER, Defendant-Appellee
- Cited By
- 5 cases
- Status
- Published