FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 20 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-10111
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:00-cr-00505-WHA-3
Northern District of California,
v. San Francisco
CHARLES W. MCCALL,
ORDER
Defendant - Appellant.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judge, and BLOCK,
Senior District Judge.*
The memorandum filed on July 5, 2011 is hereby amended. The changes are
as follows:
Page 2, Line Insert <3. McCall’s defense theory was adequately covered by
8 the combination of the reckless disregard instruction and the good
faith instruction. And “it is not reversible error to reject a
defendant’s proposed instruction on his theory of the case if other
instructions, in their entirety, adequately cover the defense
theory.” United States v. Romm, 455 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir.
2006) (quoting United States v. Mason, 902 F.2d 1434, 1438 (9th
Cir. 1990)).> before <3. It is>
*
The Honorable Frederic Block, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for Eastern New York, sitting by designation.
Page 2, Line Replace <3. It is> with <4. Even if there were an error in the
8 jury instructions, it is>
Page 2, Line Delete
9
Page 2, Line Replace with
16
With these amendments, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the
petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc.
The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no
active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehearing the matter en banc. Fed.
R. App. P. 35.
The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing are DENIED.
No further petitions shall be entertained.