Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. John A. Hickey, United States of America v. John A. Hickey, 02-10197 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Number: 02-10197 Visitors: 6
Filed: Mar. 08, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: 400 F.3d 658 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John A. HICKEY, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John A. Hickey, Defendant-Appellant. No. 02-10197. No. 02-10204. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted January 13, 2004. Filed April 30, 2004. Amended March 8, 2005. David J. Cohen, Cohen & Paik, San Francisco, CA, for the defendant-appellant. Robin Harris, Assistant United States Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for the pla
More

400 F.3d 658

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
John A. HICKEY, Defendant-Appellant.
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
John A. Hickey, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-10197.

No. 02-10204.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted January 13, 2004.

Filed April 30, 2004.

Amended March 8, 2005.

David J. Cohen, Cohen & Paik, San Francisco, CA, for the defendant-appellant.

Robin Harris, Assistant United States Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-97-00218-MMC.

Before WALLACE, McKEOWN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

1

The opinion is amended as follows: (a) the paragraph in section V that begins "Hickey's arguments meet none of the criteria" is deleted; (b) the first word of the next paragraph is deleted so that the sentence reads "The district court did not resolve an `important issue'"; and (c) the following footnote is inserted at the end of the sentence:

2

We need not decide whether Hickey's challenge to the indictments has been "conclusively determined," because, as we explain, that challenge does not meet the remaining requirements of the collateral order doctrine.

3

With these changes the petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. No further petition for rehearing will be entertained.

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