Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

7-18-2007

USA v. Hugh Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 05-4260

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007

Recommended Citation "USA v. Hugh" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 744. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/744

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 05-4260

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

NOLAN HUGH,

Appellant

On Appeal From the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Crim. Action No. 03-cr-00829) District Judge: Hon. Harvey Bartle, III

Argued January 17, 2007

BEFORE: McKEE, AMBRO and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges

Patrick L. Meehan United States Attorney Robert A. Zauzmer Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer A. Williams (Argued) Assistant U.S. Attorney 615 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106

Attorneys for Appellee

Maureen K. Rowley Chief Federal Defender David L. McColgin Assistant Federal Defender Robert Epstein (Argued) Assistant Federal Defender 601 Walnut Street The Curtis Center - Suite 540 West Philadelphia, PA 19106

Attorneys for Appellant

(Opinion filed June 14, 2007)

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

AMBRO, Circuit Judge

It is now ordered that the not precedential dissenting Opinion in the above case filed June 14, 2007, be amended as follows:

On page 23 of the opinion, in Judge Ambro’s dissent, footnote 13 is amended such that it reads in its entirety: “As explained earlier, see supra at 17–18, the majority avoids addressing the issue by erroneously concluding that the District Court did not base its decision on this ground, see Maj. Op. at 11.”

On page 28 of the opinion, in Judge Ambro’s dissent, in the second sentence of the Part entitled “III. Conclusion”, the second sentence, beginning with “It was admissible . . .” is amended by inserting a semicolon (“;”) after the word “requested”.

On pages 28 and 29 of the opinion, in Judge Ambro’s dissent, the carry-over sentence beginning “Perhaps most notable . . .” is replaced in its entirety with the following: “Perhaps most notable, though, is that the Assistant U.S. Attorney trying this case objected to Hugh’s motion to reopen at all.”

On page 29, in Judge Ambro’s dissent, in the first full sentence beginning with “It is inconceivable . . .”, the word “that” is replaced with the word “how”.

On page 29, in Judge Ambro’s dissent, in the second sentence of the final paragraph, the word “the” is replaced with the word “this” in the concluding phrase “the decision not to reopen qualifies.”, such that the phrase reads “this decision not to reopen qualifies.”

By the Court,

/s/ Thomas L. Ambro Circuit Judge Dated: July 18, 2007 lwc/cc: Robert Epstein, Esq. Paul G. Shapiro, Esq. Jennifer A. Williams, Esq.

2