kma367 wrote:

Thanks, Byn, Gwyka and OWC!  I didn't do the math, but it does appear that they missed the deadline by more than a couple of days.  I'll monitor the docket over the next week or so to see what happens.  En banc review is fairly rare anyway and the panel opinion was very detailed, so it's unlikely that the full court will grant review.

 

The same panel that issued the opinion will be the same one to decide to accept or reject this piece of fiction.

They already know the truth so it is doubtful they will accept this rehashing of the same debunked crap submitted by the desperate defense.
 

First, I’m not a lawyer, let’s get that out of the way...
BUT... I majored in criminal justice in college, had to read A LOT of decisions then wrote our own briefs, etc... then as most of you know, my life in my 30s hit a rough patch and I celebrated my 40th birthday wearing khakis furnished by the US government...
Inside I spent almost everyday at the law library...
again still not a real lawyer... but the Decision released on 12/21/2018 is the most concise and bulletproof decipn documents I have ever read... Both as a decision AND as a review of this case.
   I don’t think any of us need to spend any emotional or mental energy on this latest Hail Mary filing of the MacMurderer posse... there is just no chance at all he gets any traction with it. These judges are done with him.

Denied:

"The petition for rehearing en banc was circulated to the full court.  No judge requested a poll under Fed. R. App. P. 35.  The court denies the petition for rehearing en banc."

S/Clerk

I am betting that they will now try to request that the U.S. Supreme Court hear the case.  The good thing about that is that the U.S.S.C. dockets are now on line, including appendices.

kma367
 

Well, I'm back.  I have followed the case for many years and have posted on other boards with the same unsername.  I have read the court's recent opinion.  Here are my thoughts on the request for rehearing en banc

First, here is a part of Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which govern when an en banc hearing might be appropriate:
.(A) the panel decision conflicts with a decision of the United States Supreme Court or of the court to which the petition is addressed (with citation to the conflicting case or cases) and consideration by the full court is therefore necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the court's decisions; or(B) the proceeding involves one or more questions of exceptional importance, each of which must be concisely stated; for example, a petition may assert that a proceeding presents a question of exceptional importance if it involves an issue on which the panel decision conflicts with the authoritative decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals that have addressed the issue.

This is out of 10th Circuit local rules:
En banc consideration is often requested but seldom granted.  Ordinarily the court will grant en banc review only when necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the circuit’s decisions, to comply with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in conflict, or to consider an issue of exceptional importance
I don't think Mac's case will warrant reconsideration under these standards.  There is no conflict with Supreme Court case law and this case does not involve important legal issues.  The court's opinion was mostly a conclusion that Mac's slant on the facts is incorrect.

As for the timeliness of the en banc request, 2255 motions are a hybrid of civil and criminal processes.  The motion 2255 process has its own set of procedrual rules that say both Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure may apply.  Generally, the civil rules apply to timeliness in 2255 motions.  If filed on the 45th day, then it is timely.  However, unlikely to be granted, especially consideration it seems to be nothing but rambling non-sense that questions no "important" issue

 
 

kma367 wrote:

Denied:

"The petition for rehearing en banc was circulated to the full court.  No judge requested a poll under Fed. R. App. P. 35.  The court denies the petition for rehearing en banc."

S/Clerk

I am betting that they will now try to request that the U.S. Supreme Court hear the case.  The good thing about that is that the U.S.S.C. dockets are now on line, including appendices.

kma367
 

Thank you for the update, kma367  


Welcome to the board wfulaw - and thank you for your input. I do remember you. kma367 and you are very helpful and valued members.