green
Positive treatment
5.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
cited
Cited "see"
Uthayarosa Paramasamy v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General
See Stoyanov v. INS, 149 F.3d 1226, 1227-28 (9th Cir.1998) (remanding where Board relied on mistaken interpretation of critical date).
cited
Cited "see"
Gomez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
See Stoyanov v. INS, 149 F.3d 1226, 1227 (9th Cir.1998) (reviewing the BIA’s decision to grant or deny asylum for an abuse of discretion).
discussed
Cited "see"
Fisher v. State of Texas
Under pre-AEDPA law, factual findings made by a state court were presumed correct unless the applicant established, inter alia, "that the merits of the factual dispute were not resolved in the State court hearing.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(l)(West 1994); see Lara v. Johnson, 141 F.3d 239, 241 (5th Cir.) (stating that under pre-AEDPA law, state court findings of fact are entitled to deference "unless the petitioner demonstrates that the state courts failed to resolve the claims on the merits”), modified on other grounds, 149 F.3d 1226 (5th Cir.1998).
PER CURIAM:
Treating the Petition for Rehearing En Banc as a Petition for Panel Rehearing on behalf of Richard Lara, the Petition for Panel Rehearing is GRANTED-IN-PART as is the Petition for Rehearing of Gary L. Johnson, Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, as stated further below. No member of this panel nor judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be polled on Rehearing En Banc filed by the Appellant, Richard Lara, the Suggestion for Rehearing En Bane in his behalf is DENIED.
Both the appellant and Appellee have called our attention to an error in the prior opinion with regards to Footnote 3 of the opinion. Footnote 3 is hereby revised from:
Lara originally alleged that his rights to a speedy trial under the IAD were violated by Texas and California. On appeal, he only alleges this claim against Texas. Failure to brief an issue on appeal constitutes waiver. Koetting, 995 F.2d at 38 n. 1.
Instead it will read:
Lara originally alleged that his rights to a speedy trial under the IAD were violated by Texas and California. On appeal, he only alleges this claim against California. Failure to brief an issue on appeal constitutes waiver. Koetting, 995 F.2d at 38 n. 1.