Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
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

Bernard HAWKINS, Petitioner–Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent–Appellee.

POSNER

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division. No. 2:10–cv–00016–JTM—James T. Moody, Judge.
On Petition for Rehearing En Banc.
Julius L. Loeser, Attorney, James R. Thompson, Jr., Attorney, Thomas G. Weber, Attorney, Sean G. Wieber (argued), Attorney, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner–Appellant. Gary Bell, Attorney, David E. Hollar (argued), Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Hammond, IN, for Respondent–Appellee.
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and POSNER, KANNE, ROVNER, WOOD, WILLIAMS, SYKES, TINDER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

POSNER, Circuit Judge.




The petition to rehear this case (decided February 7, 2013, in an opinion reported at 706 F.3d 820) en banc is denied. Judges Rovner, Wood, Williams, and Hamilton voted to grant rehearing en banc.

See also the supplemental panel opinion, issued today, which denies panel rehearing, together with a dissenting opinion by Judge Rovner. ROVNER, Circuit Judge, with whom WOOD, WILLIAMS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc. I dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc for the same reasons set forth in my dissent from the denial of rehearing by the panel. I hereby incorporate by reference that dissent as a statement of the reasons why I believe the court should rehear this case en banc.
-------- Notes:

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Hawkins v. United States
(Jul 31, 2013)