Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-6-2009 USA v. Cole Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-1904 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009 Recommended Citation "USA v. Cole" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1915. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1915 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 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 06-1904 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TERRANCE L. COLE, Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal Action No. 04-cr-109) District Judge: Honorable Thomas M. Hardiman Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 10, 2007 Before: RENDELL and AMBRO, Circuit Judges, and SHAPIRO,* District Judge ORDER AMENDING OPINION __________________ * Honorable Norma L. Shapiro, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. RENDELL, Circuit Judge: It is hereby ORDERED that the Not Precedential Opinion filed in the within matter on August 31, 2007, is AMENDED as follows: On page 4, in the third paragraph, delete the following sentence: However, the District Court’s decision to grant the government’s motion to impanel an anonymous jury was announced in open court on August 15, 2005, in the presence of Cole. Supp. App. 978 and replace it with the following language: However, the anonymous jury was selected in Cole’s presence, and the judge's discussion of the voir dire made clear the jurors were to answer only by number (Tr. 8/15/05, p. 8); Cole must have realized what was going on and could have objected then or later as he was present for the discussion of an anonymous jury when Juror 197 was excused but Juror 16 was not (Tr. 8/17/05, p. 6). BY THE COURT: /s/ Marjorie O. Rendell _______________________________ Circuit Judge Dated: February 6, 2009 2