United States v. Manchester Farming Partnership, United States of America v. Lone Pine Land, Inc., United States of America v. Priest Butte Farm, Inc. , 326 F.3d 1028 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  • 326 F.3d 1028

    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    MANCHESTER FARMING PARTNERSHIP, Defendant-Appellant.
    United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    Lone Pine Land, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.
    United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    Priest Butte Farm, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

    No. 01-30414.

    No. 01-30415.

    No. 01-20416.

    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

    Argued and Submitted November 5, 2002.

    Filed January 10, 2003.

    Amended April 17, 2003.

    Kenneth R. Olson, Great Falls, MT, for defendant-appellant Manchester Farming Partnership.

    Floyd D. Corder, Corder & Allen, Great Falls, MT, for defendant-appellant Lone Pine Land, Inc.

    Daniel Donovan, Thompson, Potts & Donovan, P.C., Great Falls, MT, for defendant-appellant Priest Butte Farm, Inc.

    William W. Mercer, United States Attorney, District of Montana, for the plaintiff-appellee.

    Carl E. Rostad, Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of Montana, for the plaintiff-appellee.

    Leif M. Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of Montana, for the plaintiff-appellee.

    John A. Drennan, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for the plaintiff-appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana; Edward C. Reed, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-01-00002-ECR.

    Before TROTT, T.G. NELSON, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

    ORDER

    T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judge:

    1

    The Opinion filed January 10, 2003, slip op. 231, and appearing at 315 F.3d 1176, is amended as follows:

    2

    1. At slip op. 240, line 4, delete "with ``deliberate indifference'" and replace with "without due care".

    3

    With this amendment, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing.

    4

    The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35.

    5

    The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-30414

Citation Numbers: 326 F.3d 1028, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 7271

Filed Date: 4/17/2003

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/3/2016