The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
13-55662•United States of America v. David Mednansky, individually and MARTINE MEDNANSKY, individually.
13-55662Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNov 10, 2015
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID MEDNANSKY, individually and
MARTINE MEDNANSKY, individually.
Defendants - Appellants.
No. 13-55662
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01307-MMA-
BGS
ORDER
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The memorandum disposition filed on September 4, 2015, 2015 WL
5167842, is amended as follows:
On page 2, line 13, the text <83.3(g)(1)> is deleted and replaced with
<83.3(f)(1)>.
The panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing.
The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no
judge of the court has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc.
Fed. R. App. P. 35. Appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc is denied.
No further petitions shall be entertained.
FILED
NOV 10 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 1 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.