Rivas v. United States
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Note to readers: To navigate within this document use the set of icons listed above on the Acrobat toolbar.
These opinions are made available as a joint effort by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the
District of Columbia Bar.
District of Columbia
Court of Appeals
No. 97-CF-304
BALTAZAR RIVAS,
Appellant,
F1205-96
v.
UNITED STATES,
Appellee.
BEFORE: Wagner, Chief Judge; Terry, Steadman, Schwelb, Farrell, Ruiz, Reid, Glickman, and
Washington, Associate Judges.
ORDER
On consideration of appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc, and the opposition thereto; and it
appearing that the majority of the judges of this court has voted to grant the petition for rehearing en
banc, it is
ORDERED, sua sponte, that this court’s order filed February 16, 2000, granting appellant’s
petition for rehearing en banc is vacated, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that appellant's petition for rehearing en banc is granted and that the
opinion and judgment of August 12, 1999, are hereby vacated with respect to appellant Rivas only. It
is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall schedule this matter for argument before the court
sitting en banc as soon as the calendar permits. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall simultaneously file new briefs on or before March
23, 2000, and shall file responsive briefs no later than April 12, 2000. Each party shall file ten copies
of its briefs. These new briefs shall be specifically designed for consideration by and addressed to the
en banc court and shall supersede all briefs previously filed in this appeal. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that any requests for extension of time will be looked upon with
disfavor and will be granted only upon a showing of good cause.
PER CURIAM
Copies to:
Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
Clerk, Superior Court
James Klein, Esquire
Public Defender Service
John R. Fisher, Esquire
Assistant United States Attorney
sl
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.
