Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

hearingmotionappellant
hearingmotiondocketappellant

Related Cases

Gafurova v. Whitaker
View Case »
Amadou v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Orhorhaghe v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
R-K-T-, Matter of
View Case »
Zgodda v. Holland
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Rojas v. Wolf

Facts

The appellant filed a petition for rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc, which the court construed as a combined motion for reconsideration and motion for reconsideration en banc. The court reviewed the motions and determined that they did not warrant further consideration.

The appellant has filed a petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc, which is construed as a combined motion for reconsideration and motion for reconsideration en banc (Docket Entry No. 9).

Issue

Whether the court should grant the appellant's motion for reconsideration and motion for reconsideration en banc.

Whether the court should grant the appellant's motion for reconsideration and motion for reconsideration en banc.

Rule

The court applied the rules governing motions for reconsideration as outlined in 9th Cir. R. 27-10 and 9th Cir. Gen. Ord. 6.11.

See 9th Cir. R. 27-10 ; 9th Cir. Gen. Ord. 6.11.

Analysis

The court evaluated the appellant's motions against the applicable legal standards for reconsideration. It found that the motions did not meet the necessary criteria for granting reconsideration or en banc review.

The court evaluated the appellant's motions against the applicable legal standards for reconsideration.

Conclusion

The court denied the motion for reconsideration and the motion for reconsideration en banc, indicating that the case was closed and no further filings would be accepted.

The motion for reconsideration is denied and the motion for reconsideration en banc is denied on behalf of the court.

Who won?

The court, as the prevailing party, denied the appellant's motions, thereby upholding its previous decision.

The court, as the prevailing party, denied the appellant's motions, thereby upholding its previous decision.

You must be