United States v. Grimm

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit August 15, 2014

United States v. Grimm, 763 F.3d 221 (2d Cir. 2014)

2014 WL 4049796; 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15725

Cabranes, Carney, Chin, Droney, From, Hall, Jacobs, Katzmann, Lohier, Lynch, Pooler, Raggi, Roberta, Wesley, Whom

Opinion of the Court

ORDER

Following disposition of this appeal on December 9, 2013, an active judge of the Court requested a poll on whether to rehear the case en banc. A poll having been conducted and there being no majority favoring en banc review, rehearing en banc is hereby DENIED.

GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judge, joined by REENA RAGGI, PETER W. HALL, and RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges, dissents by opinion from the denial of rehearing en banc.

Dissenting Opinion

GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judge, with whom Judge RAGGI, Judge HALL, and Judge LOHIER join,

dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc:

For the reasons stated by Judge Kearse in her dissent from the panel’s decision, United States v. Grimm, 738 F.3d 498, 504-09 (2d Cir. 2013), I believe that the majority opinion in this case is inconsistent with United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003), and that en banc review is appropriate to settle the law of the Circuit. I therefore respectfully dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc.

Reference

Full Case Name: United States v. Peter S. GRIMM, Dominick P. Carollo, Steven E. Goldberg, UBS AG, UBS Securities LLC, UBS Financial Services, Inc., Intervenors
Status: Published