U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2014

Wood v. Ryan

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided July 18, 2014 · Wardlaw

760 F.3d 919; 2014 WL 3558126; 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13782 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

Julie Hall, Law Offices of Julie S. Hall, Oracle, AZ, Kevin Clarence Lerch, Law Office of Kevin C. Lerch, Tucson, AZ, Dale A. Baich, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jennifer Yolanda Garcia, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner-Appellant., Kent Ernest Cattani, Chief Counsel, John Pressley Todd, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey A. Zick, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, Amy Pignatella Cain, Assistant Attorney General, AGAZ-Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Lacey Stover Gard, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Tucson, AZ, for Respondent-Appellee.

Opinion

ORDER

WARDLAW, Circuit Judge:

Petitioner has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Stay of Execution. Because the three-judge panel consisting of Judges Thomas, Gould, and Bybee has jurisdiction over Appeal No. 08-99003 and petitioner’s execution is not “imminent,” the Petition for Writ of Habe- *920 as Corpus and Motion for Stay of Execution is referred to the Clerk for determination by the three-judge panel. See Cir. R. 22-2(c) (“Once a case is assigned to a death penalty panel, the panel will handle all matters pertaining to the case.... ”); Cir. R. 22-4(e) (“In all capital cases where petitioner seeks a stay of execution, the Clerk shall refer any motion for a stay of execution to the death penalty panel.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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