Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

2-12-2009

USA v. Duronio Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 06-5116

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009

Recommended Citation "USA v. Duronio" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1875. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1875

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 2009 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. 06-5116

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ROGER DURONIO, Appellant (D.N.J. No. 02-cr-00933)

Before: MCKEE, SMITH and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Slip Opinion filed in this case on February 9, 2009, be amended as follows:

On page 4, the sentence beginning “This was a direct response to Duronio’s own suggestion . . .” should be changed to read as follows: “This was a direct response to Duronio’s own suggestion that the Government should have called the co- worker as a prosecution witness.”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

By the Court,

/s/Theodore A. McKee Circuit Judge

Dated: 12 February 2009 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 06-5116

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ROGER DURONIO, Appellant (D.N.J. No. 02-cr-00933)

Before: MCKEE, SMITH and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Slip Opinion filed in this case on February 9, 2009, be amended as follows:

On page 4, the sentence beginning “This was a direct response to Duronio’s own suggestion . . .” should be changed to read as follows: “This was a direct response to Duronio’s own suggestion that the Government should have called the co- worker as a prosecution witness.”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

By the Court,

/s/Theodore A. McKee Circuit Judge

Dated: 12 February 2009