U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2000

United States v. Steven Lawrence Riley

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided November 20, 2000 · Tjoflat, Cox, Barkett

232 F.3d 844 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

Ellis Rexwood Curry, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellant., Rachelle DesVaux Bedke, Tamra Phipps, Karen Cox, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Steven Lawrence Riley (11th Cir. 2001)
United States v. Leslie Perkins (11th Cir. 2006)
United States v. Maureen Gray (11th Cir. 2006)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

BY THE COURT:

We sua sponte grant rehearing in this appeal. Our opinion is published at 211 F.3d 1207 (11th Cir. 2000).

After we filed our opinion in this appeal, but before the mandate issued, the Supreme Court decided Castillo v. United States, 530 U.S. 120, 120 S.Ct. 2090, 147 L.Ed.2d 94 (2000), which casts doubt on the correctness of our ruling rejecting Riley’s challenge to the enhanced penalty the district court imposed on him under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). We accordingly vacate the portion of our prior opinion addressing the § 924(c) sentencing issue and direct the clerk to schedule the appeal for oral argument on that issue before a regular oral-argument panel.

REHEARING GRANTED; OPINION VACATED IN PART; ORAL ARGUMENT GRANTED IN PART.

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