Text
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge and PORFILIO, ANDERSON, TACHA, BALDOCK, BRORBY, EBEL, KELLY, HENRY, BRISCOE, LUCERO and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
We granted rehearing en banc in this case on the question:
For statute of limitations purposes, must an indictment charging a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. 371 allege at least one specific overt act occurring within the limitations period established by 18 U.S.C. 3282?
Because we are evenly divided, we affirm the district court's judgment on this issue. That portion of the panel opinion which addressed this issue and which is found at II.B. of the opinion, United States v. Stoner, 98 F.3d 527, 531-538 (10th Cir.1996), is without precedent. Ohio ex rel. Eaton v. Price, 364 U.S. 263, 263-264, 80 S.Ct. 1463, 1463-1464, 4 L.Ed.2d 1708 (1960); United States v. Rivera, 874 F.2d 754 (10th Cir.1989). The panel opinion is otherwise undisturbed.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cynthia M. Stoner, Defendant-Appellant., 98 F.3d 527 (10th Cir. 1996)
- U.S. Code - Title 18: Crimes and Criminal Procedure - 18 USC 371 - Sec. 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
- U.S. Code - Title 18: Crimes and Criminal Procedure - 18 USC 3282 - Sec. 3282. Offenses not capital
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Anthony Rivera, Defendant-Appellant., 874 F.2d 754 (10th Cir. 1989)
See other documents that cite the same legislation