Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 91-2148

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GUY WILLARD TOOKER,
BAO TRAN, ROY JOHN SCOTT,
ROBERT C. DeBROPHY,
Defendants-Appellants.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas

ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
(Opinion March 30, 1992, 5th Cir., 1992______F.2d_______)
(May 8, 1992)
Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Tooker, Bao Tran, Scott, and DeBrophy, appellants, all
petition the court for a rehearing. The petitioners' arguments
were all made in the original briefs to this court, and we reject
them for the reasons stated in the panel opinion.
Petitioners point out a transposition in the original panel
opinion. The opinion states:
"Both DeBrophy and Scott contend that, because their
letter of intent to Gessner described an agreement to
sell Gessner `Basmati rice,' there is no evidence that

either intended to sell Vietnamese rice in violation of
the law."
United States v. Tooker, Slip Op. No. 91-2148, at 3809 (5th Cir.
March 30, 1992) (emphasis added). This passage transposed
DeBrophy's and Scott's names with Gessner's. Accordingly, the
sentence should be altered to read:
"Both DeBrophy and Scott contend that, because Gessner's
letter of intent to DeBrophy and Scott described an
agreement to sell Gessner `Basmati rice,' there is no
evidence that either DeBrophy or Scott intended to sell
Vietnamese rice in violation of the law."
This typographical error has no effect on the court's reasoning or
result. The appellants' petition is meritless.
The court's opinion will be AMENDED as specified in this
order. The petitions for rehearing are DENIED and no member of
this panel nor judge in regular active service on the Court having
requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure and Local Rule 35) the Suggestion for
Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.
2