Testo completo
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ANDRES SOTO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-50296
D.C. No.
3:16-cr-02192-MMA-1
Southern District of California,
San Diego
ORDER
Before: WARDLAW and BEA, Circuit Judges, and MURPHY,* District Judge.
The memorandum disposition filed on February 21, 2019 is amended as
follows:
On page three of the memorandum disposition, in the paragraph beginning
“3. Because Soto was not subject to custodial interrogation,” replace <The district
court did not clearly err> with <Reviewing the question de novo, the district court
did not err>.
With this amendment, Judges Wardlaw and Bea vote to deny the appellant’s
petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, and Judge Murphy so
recommends. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc,
and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc.
* The Honorable Stephen Joseph Murphy III, United States District
Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
FILED
MAY 8 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc is
therefore DENIED. No further petitions for panel or en banc rehearing shall be
permitted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
-- 2 of 2 --
