calling into doubt precedent that was “based solely” on Guideline language that an amendment deleted
How later courts described this case
- calling into doubt precedent that was “based solely” on Guideline language that an amendment deleted
- holding that possession of listed chemical with intent to manufacture controlled substance is “controlled substance offense”
- holding possession of a listed chemical with intent to manufacture to be a con- trolled substance offense under § 4B1.2
- “[Patterson] does not hold that the district court may not consider the unsworn statements of the prosecutor. Patterson merely holds that such statements, when they are the only evidence supporting the district court’s finding, are inadequate to support that finding.” (citing Patterson, 962 F.2d at 415; Johnson, 823 F.2d at 842)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Feb. 18, 1994.
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, KING, GARWOOD, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DUHÉ, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT:
A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestion for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,
IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the Court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.