AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
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
Attorney(S)
Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. PHILIP WEINSTEIN, "DR. PHILIP ADAMELLI," WILHELMINA HARICH WEINSTEIN, SOLOMON RICHMAN, A/K/A "SOL" A/K/A "SILVER FOX," ROBERT "BOBBY" FALVO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC [2] (Opinion June 12, 1985, 11 Cir., 762 F.2d 1522)

PER CURIAM:

The panel opinion is modified by the following amendments: Change the word "vacated" to "reversed" where used in the last sentence of Part III. B. 2. b. of the opinion, 762 F.2d at 1535 and the second sentence of Part VIII of the opinion, 762 F.2d at 1543.

The following sentence is struck from Part IV A of the opinion, 762 F.2d at 1537:

Because we vacate Wilhelmina Weinstein's conviction on this ground, we decline to review further her claims as to sufficiency of the evidence.

In its place the following is substituted:

Because we reverse Wilhelmina Weinstein's conviction on this ground, we will not recite at length the remaining evidence against her. As observed above, it was sufficient.

In all other respects, the Petitions for Rehearing are DENIED and no member of this panel nor other judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Eleventh Circuit Rule 26), the Suggestions for Rehearing En Banc are DENIED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

UNITED STATES v. WEINSTEIN
(Feb 10, 1986)