U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2011

United States v. Kurt Havelock

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided May 9, 2011 · Kozinski

645 F.3d 1083; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9485; 2011 WL 1745015 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

Michael Thomas Morrissey, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Daniel L. Kaplan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

United States v. Havelock (9th Cir. 2011)

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

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this *1084 case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

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