Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Gabriel MARTINEZ-TAPIA, Respondent-Appellant, 1975 — 519 F.2d 1375 · caselaw · US
General
UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Gabriel MARTINEZ-TAPIA, Respondent-Appellant
519 F.2d 1375·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1975
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Gabriel MARTINEZ-TAPIA, Respondent-Appellant.
No. 73-2121.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Aug. 6, 1975.
Robert L. Boles (argued), Federal Defenders, San Diego, Cal., for respondent-appellant.
Lyn I. Goldberg, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Harry D. Steward, U. S. Atty., James W. Meyers, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the petition for rehearing, San Diego, Cal., for petitioner-appellee.
Before DUNIWAY and SNEED, Circuit Judges, and SWEIGERT, District Judge:
The Honorable William T. Sweigert, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM:]
OPINION ON REHEARING
PER CURIAM:
The petition for a rehearing is granted. The prior opinion in this case, 499 F.2d 1244 is withdrawn, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed on the authority of United States v. Peltier, 1975, 422 U.S. 531, 95 S.Ct. 2313, 45 L.Ed.2d 374.