U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 1998

United States v. Cynthia M. Stoner

United States v. Cynthia M. Stoner
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Decided April 7, 1998 · Anderson, Baldock, Briscoe, Brorby, Ebel, Henry, Kelly, Per Curiam, Porfilio, Seymour, Tacha
139 F.3d 1343; 1998 WL 163659 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

United States v. Cynthia M. Stoner

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.