# United States v. Mayer

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · March 16, 2009 · 560 F.3d 948

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9570159

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Casey Dale MAYER, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 16, 2009
- **Citations:** 560 F.3d 948; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8245; 2009 WL 650411
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Smith
- **Judges:** Kozinski, Tallman, Clifton, Smith
- **Cited by:** 80 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled implicitly by Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9570159

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that Oregon’s burglary statute falls within the residual clause, even though it does not include all of generic burglary’s elements
- holding that first degree burglary under Oregon law is “broader than the definition of generic burglary because the statute does not limit burglary to ‘building[s] or structure[s],’ but also includes non-structures (such as booths, vehicles, boats, and aircraft) that are regul…
- holding that Oregon’s first-degree burglary statute “does not categorically satisfy the generic definition of burglary”
- holding that two tips, including one from a reliable informant, that a defendant lived at a particular residence (at which he also was known to have previously resided) supported probable cause as to residence
- holding that Oregon burglary offense poses serious potential risk of injury only with respect to occupants and those in the “immediate area of a building if a confrontation does occur”

## Opinion text

Order; Dissent to Order by Chief Judge KOZINKI; Opinion by
N.R. SMITH.
ORDER
The opinion in the above-captioned matter filed on June 30, 2008, and published at 530 F.3d 1099 , is WITHDRAWN. The superseding opinion shall be filed concurrently with this order.
Having made the foregoing amendments to the opinion, all judges on the panel have voted to deny Defendant/Appellee’s Petition for Panel Rehearing, and so that petition is DENIED.
The full court has been advised of Defendant/Appellee’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc, and a judge of this court requested a vote on whether this case should be reheard en banc; however, a majority of the active judges did not vote in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. RApp. P. 35. Accordingly, the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is also DENIED.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9570159. Public record. Not legal advice.