United States v. Thomas, Jr., No. 14-10427 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
In this order, the Ninth Circuit granted in part and denied in part a petition for panel rehearing, and denied on behalf of the court a petition for rehearing en banc.
In 2016, a Ninth Circuit panel affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for multiple counts of conspiracy, armed bank robbery, and use of a firearm during a crime of violence. Subsequent to that decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Dean v. United States, holding that nothing in 18 U.S.C. 924(c) restricts the authority conferred on sentencing courts by 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) and the related provisions to consider a sentence imposed under section 924(c) when calculating a just sentence for the predicate count. In light of the decision in Dean, the Ninth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel filed an order granting in part and denying in part a petition for panel rehearing, and denying on behalf of the court a petition for rehearing en banc, in a case in which the panel, on December 20, 2016, filed an opinion affirming a conviction and sentence for multiple counts of conspiracy, armed bank robbery, and use of a firearm during a crime of violence. The panel vacated the sentence imposed by the district court and remanded for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Dean v. United States, No. 15-9260, slip op. at 6 (U.S. Apr. 3, 2017), which said that “[n]othing in § 924(c) restricts the authority conferred on sentencing courts by § 3553(a) and the related provisions to consider a sentence imposed under § 924(c) when calculating a just sentence for the predicate count.” Dissenting, Judge Wallace would deny the petition for rehearing because the Supreme Court in Dean merely confirmed the conclusion of the district judge, who clearly acknowledged his discretion to reduce the sentence for the predicate offenses. UNITED STATES V. THOMAS 3
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on December 20, 2016.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.