Opinion

United States v. Contreras

  • 593 F.3d 1135
  • 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 2172
  • 2010 WL 348004
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Filed
Feb 2, 2010
Status
Published
Author
Tashima
On the bench
Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, A. Wallace Tashima, Sidney R. Thomas, M. Margaret McKeown, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Richard R. Clifton, Jay S. Bybee, Consuelo M. Callahan, Carlos T. Bea, Milan D. Smith, Jr. and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges
Cited by
83 cases
Authority
More cited than 13.0%

holding that a three-judge panel cannot overrule prior decisions, even if those decisions failed to address arguments regarding the effect of intervening authority

How later courts described this case

  • holding that a three-judge panel cannot overrule prior decisions, even if those decisions failed to address arguments regarding the effect of intervening authority
  • holding that a three-judge panel lacked authority to overrule decisions that failed to recognize an intervening amendment to a sentencing guideline
  • reversing a three-judge panel for overruling binding circuit precedent that was not clearly irreconcilable with intervening higher authority.
  • suggesting that a later panel may be bound in limited circumstances by an earlier panel’s silence

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

TASHIMA, Circuit Judge,

concurring:

I concur in the judgment and all of the en banc court’s opinion, except for the second sentence of the first paragraph, and write briefly to explain my position.

This case was taken en banc on the issue of whether the three-judge panel overstepped its authority in holding that United States v. Hill, 915 F.2d 502 (9th Cir. 1990), had been overruled by the 1993 amendment of application note 1 of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. See United States v. Contreras, 581 F.3d 1163, 1164, 1168-69 (9th Cir.2009) (“Contreras I ”). The three-judge panel’s mode of analysis is set forth in Contreras I, id. at 1167-68. By vacating that portion of Contreras I, although adopting the remainder of the three-judge panel’s opinion, the en banc court has disapproved of that mode of analysis. Although the reasons for its disapproval are unexpressed, presumably they are bottomed on the en banc court’s reading of circuit precedent, particularly Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc).

I continue to abide by the three-judge panel’s reading and application of circuit precedent in the circumstances of this case and adhere to that portion of my opinion in Contreras I. With that caveat, I join in the court’s opinion.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.