United States v. 2008-02-28 | 04-15919 | BRADLEY V. HENRY | precedential | opinion |

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
 NICOLE BRADLEY, No. 04-15919
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No.
v. CV-03-03034-PJH
GLORIA HENRY, Warden, ORDER
Respondent-Appellee. AMENDING  CONCURRING
OPINION AND
DENYING
PETITION FOR
REHEARING

Filed February 29, 2008
Before: Mary M. Schroeder, Harry Pregerson,
Warren J. Ferguson, John T. Noonan, Sidney R. Thomas,
Barry G. Silverman, William A. Fletcher, Marsha S. Berzon,
Richard C. Tallman, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, and
Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
The separate opinion by Judge Clifton concurring in the
judgment filed on December 19, 2007 is amended as follows:
At slip op., p. 16515, 510 F.3d 1093, 1099, insert the fol-
lowing footnote at the end of the first paragraph of the sepa-
rate opinion:
The plurality opinion has been joined by only five of
the eleven judges on this limited en banc panel.
Because that constitutes less than a majority of the
1799

-- 1 of 4 --

panel, that opinion does not announce the law of this
circuit. The precedential effect of this decision does
not extend beyond the conclusions expressed in this
separate opinion, which concurs in the judgment on
more narrow grounds. See Marks v. United States,
430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977).
With this amendment, the petition for rehearing is
DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing will be enter-
tained.
1800 BRADLEY v. HENRY

-- 2 of 4 --

-- 3 of 4 --

PRINTED FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS
BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO
The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted
© 2008 Thomson/West.

-- 4 of 4 --