Filed: Mar. 02, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: At p. 41, l. 9, add We note that Cunningham has not argued, that the evidence was insufficient. Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 6 (1978); Ball v., United States, 163 U.S. 662, 672 (1896).
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 02-1623
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
RALPH CASAS,
Defendant, Appellant.
No. 02-1624
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
FELICIANO NIEVES,
Defendant, Appellant.
Nos. 02-1785
02-1674
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
WINSTON CUNNINGHAM,
Defendant, Appellant.
No. 02-1794
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
RAFAEL SEGUI-RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant, Appellant.
ERRATA SHEET
The opinion of this Court issued on January 20, 2004 is
amended as follows:
At p. 41, l. 9, add "We note that Cunningham has not argued
that the evidence was insufficient."
At p. 55, l. 12, add "and the United States is free to retry
Cunningham if it so chooses. See Montana v. Hall, 481 U.S. 400,
402 (1987); Burks v. United States,
437 U.S. 1, 6 (1978); Ball v.
United States,
163 U.S. 662, 672 (1896)."
