Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Casseus, 0-2803 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Number: 0-2803
Filed: Mar. 15, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2002 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-15-2002 USA v. Casseus Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket 0-2803 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002 Recommended Citation "USA v. Casseus" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 180. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/180 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals fo
More
Opinions of the United 2002 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-15-2002 USA v. Casseus Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket 0-2803 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002 Recommended Citation "USA v. Casseus" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 180. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/180 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. PRECEDENTIAL Filed March 15, 2002 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Nos. 00-2803 and 00-2804 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RENEL CASSEUS, Appellant No. 00-2803 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CHRISLEME FLEURANTIN, Appellant No. 00-2804 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS (D.C. Nos. 99-cr-00033-1, 99-cr-00033-2) District Judge: The Honorable Thomas K. Moore Argued: DECEMBER 3, 2001 BEFORE: BECKER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and COWEN, Circuit Judges. ORDER AMENDING SLIP OPINION IT IS ORDERED that the slip opinion in the above case, filed on March 5, 2002, be amended as follows: On page 5, line 25, insert "not" after the word "does" and before the word "require." The last sentence of Part II should now read as follows: "Because appellants were not harmed in any way, we conclude that even if the District Court erred, that error does not require that we reverse their convictions." By the Court, /s/Richard L. NygaardCircuit Judge Dated: March 15, 2002 A True Copy: Teste: Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer