Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Edward M. Czuprynski, 93-1079 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Number: 93-1079 Visitors: 20
Filed: Feb. 17, 1994
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 16 F.3d 704 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward M. CZUPRYNSKI, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-1079. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Feb. 17, 1994. Before: MERRITT, Chief Judge; KEITH, KENNEDY, MARTIN, JONES, MILBURN, GUY, NELSON, RYAN, BOGGS, NORRIS, SUHRHEINRICH, SILER, BATCHELDER, and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges. ORDER 1 Prior report: 8 F.3d 1113 . 2 A majority of the Judges of this Court in regular active service have voted for rehearing of this case en banc. Six
More

16 F.3d 704

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Edward M. CZUPRYNSKI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 93-1079.

United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 17, 1994.

Before: MERRITT, Chief Judge; KEITH, KENNEDY, MARTIN, JONES, MILBURN, GUY, NELSON, RYAN, BOGGS, NORRIS, SUHRHEINRICH, SILER, BATCHELDER, and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

Prior report: 8 F.3d 1113.

2

A majority of the Judges of this Court in regular active service have voted for rehearing of this case en banc. Sixth Circuit Rule 14 provides as follows:

3

The effect of the granting of a hearing en banc shall be to vacate the previous opinion and judgment of this court, to stay the mandate and to restore the case on the docket sheet as a pending appeal.

4

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the previous decision and judgment of this court is vacated, the mandate is stayed and this case is restored to the docket as a pending appeal.

5

The Clerk will direct the parties to file supplemental briefs and will schedule this case for oral argument as soon as possible.

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