Bradley v. Henry

Filing 920080228

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NICOLE BRADLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. GLORIA HENRY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 04-15919 D.C. No. CV-03-03034-PJH ORDER 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 following footnote at the end of the first paragraph of the separate 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

1800

BRADLEY v. HENRY

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 entertained.

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.