Opinion
No. 99-17372.
Argued and Submitted October 3, 2000.
Filed December 29, 2000. Order Amending Opinion Filed April 11, 2001.
Bebe J. Anderson, The Center for Reproductive Law Policy, New York, N.Y. and Michael Owen Miller, Miller Smith LLP, Tucson, Arizona for the plaintiffs-appellees.
Charles R. Pyle, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson, Arizona, for the defendants-appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona; William D. Browning, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-96-00288-WDB.
Before: SNEED, SCHROEDER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge SCHROEDER; Concurrence by Judge SNEED
ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION
ORDER
Appellants have filed a petition for rehearing that pertains to one sentence of the court's opinion. The sentence reads: "But where a statute criminalizes conduct, the law may not be impermissibly vague in any of its applications." Forbes v. Napolitano, 236 F.3d 1009, 1011 (9th Cir. 2000). The petition for rehearing is GRANTED to the extent that the sentence in question is deleted, and the following substituted: "But where a statute criminalizes conduct, the law may be invalidated on vagueness grounds even if it could conceivably have some valid application."