Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie HOUSTON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER
Judges Bybee and VanDyke vote to deny and Judge Chhabria would grant the petition for panel rehearing. Judge VanDyke votes to deny and Judge Bybee recommends denial of the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35.
The petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc are therefore DENIED.
I would grant rehearing, vacate our memorandum disposition, and schedule oral argument (which we previously concluded was unnecessary) because of the possibility that we erred in resting our ruling on the conclusion that the district court was not required to consider the sentencing factors in connection with the motion to reduce the defendant's sentence. See United States v. Easter, 975 F.3d 318 (3rd Cir. 2020); United States v. Chambers, 956 F.3d 667 (4th Cir. 2020); United States v. Smith, 959 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 2020). See also United States v. Kelley, 962 F.3d 470, 478 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding that a plenary resentencing proceeding is not required in this context but contemplating that the district court will consider the statutory sentencing factors in deciding whether the reduction is warranted). But see United States v. Moore, 963 F.3d 725 (8th Cir. 2020); United States v. Mannie, 971 F.3d 1145 (10th Cir. 2020); United States v. Shaw, 957 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2020).
Dissent by Judge Chhabria
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20-10043
Decided: November 20, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)