Opinion
Nos. 14-50393 14-50394
08-22-2017
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rufino PERALTA-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Michelle Wasserman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, David Daniel Leshner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Colin M. McDonald, Assistant U.S. Attorney, US Department of Justice, Southern District of California, Suite # 6293, 880 Front Street, San Diego, CA 92101, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Kara Hartzler, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., Suite 900, 225 Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101-5030, for Defendant-Appellant David Lee Menninger, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender's Office (Los Angeles), 321 East Second Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012-4202, for Amicus Curiae NINTH CIRCUIT FEDERAL PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY DEFENDERS Laura McClure St. John, Attorney, Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, P.O. Box 654, 2601 N. Hwy 79, Florence, AZ 85132, for Amicus Curiae NONPROFIT IMMIGRATION ORGANIZATIONS AND LAW SCHOOL IMMIGRATION CLINICS Mark H. Lynch, Covington & Burling LLP, One CityCenter, 850 Tenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20001-4956, for Amicus Curiae LAW PROFESSORS Kari Elisabeth Hong, Attorney, Boston College Law School, 885 Centre Street, Newton, MA 02459, Stephen William Manning, IMMIGRANT LAW GROUP PC, P.O. Box 40103, Portland, OR 97240, for Amicus Curiae LAW PROFESSORS, IMMIGRATION SCHOLARS, AND CLINICIANS Stephen B. Kang, ACLU Foundation of Northern California, 39 Drumm Street, San Francisco, CA 94111, for Amicus Curiae ACLU IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT, ACLU OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; ACLU OF SAN DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES; AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL and NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD Christopher Hajec, CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, Suite 300, 1233 20th St. NW, Washington, DC 20036, for Amicus Curiae IMMIGRATION REFORM LAW INSTITUTE
Michelle Wasserman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, David Daniel Leshner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Colin M. McDonald, Assistant U.S. Attorney, US Department of Justice, Southern District of California, Suite # 6293, 880 Front Street, San Diego, CA 92101, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kara Hartzler, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., Suite 900, 225 Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101-5030, for Defendant-Appellant
David Lee Menninger, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender's Office (Los Angeles), 321 East Second Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012-4202, for Amicus Curiae NINTH CIRCUIT FEDERAL PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY DEFENDERS
Laura McClure St. John, Attorney, Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, P.O. Box 654, 2601 N. Hwy 79, Florence, AZ 85132, for Amicus Curiae NONPROFIT IMMIGRATION ORGANIZATIONS AND LAW SCHOOL IMMIGRATION CLINICS
Mark H. Lynch, Covington & Burling LLP, One CityCenter, 850 Tenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20001-4956, for Amicus Curiae LAW PROFESSORS
Kari Elisabeth Hong, Attorney, Boston College Law School, 885 Centre Street, Newton, MA 02459, Stephen William Manning, IMMIGRANT LAW GROUP PC, P.O. Box 40103, Portland, OR 97240, for Amicus Curiae LAW PROFESSORS, IMMIGRATION SCHOLARS, AND CLINICIANS
Stephen B. Kang, ACLU Foundation of Northern California, 39 Drumm Street, San Francisco, CA 94111, for Amicus Curiae ACLU IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT, ACLU OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; ACLU OF SAN DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES; AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL and NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
Christopher Hajec, CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, Suite 300, 1233 20th St. NW, Washington, DC 20036, for Amicus Curiae IMMIGRATION REFORM LAW INSTITUTE
Before: Harry Pregerson, Jay S. Bybee, and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Appellant's petition for panel rehearing is hereby GRANTED.
The opinion and dissent filed February 7, 2017, Nos. 14-50393 and 14-50394, and appearing at 847 F.3d 1124, are withdrawn. It shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.
A memorandum disposition is being simultaneously filed with this order. Judge Pregerson concurs in the judgment.
No further petitions for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc will be entertained in this case.