Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CYNTHIA M. STONER, Defendant-Appellee

ORDER

PER CURIAM

We granted rehearing en banc in this case on the question:

For statute of limitations purposes, must an indictment charging a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 allege at least one specific overt act occurring within the limitations period established by 18 U.S.C. § 3282?

Because we are evenly divided, we affirm the district court's judgment on this issue. That portion of the panel opinion which addressed this issue and which is found at II.B. of the opinion, United States v. Stoner, 98 F.3d 527, 531-538 (10th Cir. 1996), is without precedent. Ohio ex rel. Eaton v. Price, 364 U.S. 263, 263-264, 80 S.Ct. 1463, 4 L.Ed.2d 1708 (1960); United States v. Rivera, 874 F.2d 754 (10th Cir. 1989). The panel opinion is otherwise undisturbed.

The judgement of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

UNITED STATES v. STONER
(Apr 7, 1998)