US v. Aaron Graham, No. 12-4659 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 5, 2015.
Download PDF
FILED: October 28, 2015 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ___________________ No. 12-4659 (L) (1:11-cr-00094-RDB-1) ___________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee v. AARON GRAHAM Defendant - Appellant -----------------------------ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF MARYLAND; CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY & TECHNOLOGY; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION Amici Supporting Appellant ___________________ No. 12-4825 (1:11-cr-00094-RDB-2) ___________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee v. ERIC JORDAN Defendant - Appellant -----------------------------ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF MARYLAND; CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY & TECHNOLOGY; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION Amici Supporting Appellant ___________________ ORDER ___________________ A majority of judges in regular active service and not disqualified having voted in a requested poll of the court to grant the government’s petition for rehearing en banc, the court grants the government’s petition for rehearing en banc. No member of the court requested a poll on the petitions for rehearing en banc filed by Appellants Graham and Jordan, and those petitions are denied. Appellant Jordan’s petition for panel rehearing is also denied. The parties and amici curiae shall file 16 additional paper copies of their briefs and appendices previously filed in this case within 10 days. The parties may move, or the court may sua sponte order, the filing of supplemental en banc briefs pursuant to Local Rule 35(d). This case is tentatively calendared for oral argument during the court’s March 22-25, 2016, oral argument session. For the Court /s/ Patricia S. Connor, Clerk
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.
