U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2005

United States v. Aldo Tarallo

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided June 29, 2005 · Nelson, Gibson, Graber

413 F.3d 928; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 12897; 2005 WL 1523553 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

Barry Tarlow and Tarik S. Adlai, Tarlow & Berk, Los Angeles, CA, for the defendant-appellant., Steven J. Olson, Assistant United States Attorney, Major Frauds Section, Los An-geles, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

United States v. Davis (9th 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

ORDER AMENDING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC AND AMENDED OPINION

The opinion filed August 20, 2004, is amended as follows:

On slip opinion page 11814, and published at 380 F.3d 1174, 1196 (9th Cir. 2004), delete footnote 9 and add the following sentence to the conclusion at the end of the opinion: “The remainder of the sentence is REMANDED to the district court for proceedings consistent with United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc).”

With this amendment, the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judge Graber has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judges D.W. Nelson and Gibson have so recommended.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on it.

The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc may be filed.

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