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

2-6-2009

USA v. Cole Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 06-1904

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

Recommended Citation "USA v. Cole" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1915. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1915

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. 06-1904

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

TERRANCE L. COLE,

Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal Action No. 04-cr-109) District Judge: Honorable Thomas M. Hardiman

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 10, 2007

Before: RENDELL and AMBRO, Circuit Judges, and SHAPIRO,* District Judge

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

__________________

* Honorable Norma L. Shapiro, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. RENDELL, Circuit Judge:

It is hereby ORDERED that the Not Precedential Opinion filed in the within matter

on August 31, 2007, is AMENDED as follows:

On page 4, in the third paragraph, delete the following sentence:

However, the District Court’s decision to grant the government’s motion to impanel an anonymous jury was announced in open court on August 15, 2005, in the presence of Cole. Supp. App. 978

and replace it with the following language:

However, the anonymous jury was selected in Cole’s presence, and the judge's discussion of the voir dire made clear the jurors were to answer only by number (Tr. 8/15/05, p. 8); Cole must have realized what was going on and could have objected then or later as he was present for the discussion of an anonymous jury when Juror 197 was excused but Juror 16 was not (Tr. 8/17/05, p. 6).

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Marjorie O. Rendell _______________________________ Circuit Judge

Dated: February 6, 2009

2