United States v. Contreras
9th Cir.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Katie Sue CONTRERAS, Seal F La Gorda, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges
- Before ALEX KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, A. WALLACE TASHIMA, SIDNEY R. THOMAS, M. MARGARET McKEOWN, JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON, RICHARD R. CLIFTON, JAY S. BYBEE, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, CARLOS T. BEA, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and SANDRA S. IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Attorneys
- Thomas P. O’Brien, United States Attorney, George S. Cardona, Acting United States Attorney, Christine C. Ewell, Daniel B. Levin and Michael J. Stern, Assistant United States Attorneys, Los Angeles, CA, for plaintiff-appellee the United States of America.
- Thomas W. Kielty, Los Angeles, CA, for defendant-appellant Katie Sue Contreras.
majority
ORDER
KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The case is submitted without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
We adopt as our own the three-judge panel’s opinion in United States v. Contreras, 581 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir.2009), except that we do not agree that the three-judge panel had authority to overrule cases decided after the 1993 amendment to the Guidelines. We vacate that portion of the opinion starting with “Notwithstanding Willard or the 1993 amendments ...” 581 F.3d at 1167, column 1, line 1, and ending with “Equally certain ... is the fact that,” 581 F.3d at 1168, column 2, line 13, as well as the second to last paragraph, which says “We conclude that to the extent Hill ... overruled by the 1993 amendments to § 3B1.3’s commentary,” 581 F.3d at 1168— 69.
We overrule United States v. Peyton, 353 F.3d 1080, 1090-91 (9th Cir.2003); United States v. Brickey, 289 F.3d 1144, 1153-55 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Hoskins, 282 F.3d 772, 778-79 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Technic Servs., Inc., 314 F.3d 1031, 1048-49 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Medrano, 241 F.3d 740, 746 (9th Cir.2001); United States v. Velez, 185 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir.1999); United States v. Isaacson, 155 F.3d 1083, 1084-86 (9th Cir.1998); United States v. Oplinger, 150 F.3d 1061, 1068-70 (9th Cir.1998); United States v. Hill, 915 F.2d 502, 506 (9th Cir.1990), and any of our other cases, to the extent they conflict with our interpretation of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3.
Chat with this case using AI
Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.