Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive
Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Richard H. Thier, Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 809 F.2d 249
Jan. 27, 1987
William W. Taylor, III, Washington, D.C., Richard H. Thier, pro se, Miami Beach, Fla., John F. Evans, G. Richard Strafer, Coral Gables, Fla., for amicus curiae-Nat. Ass'n for Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Victor Sherman, Janet Sherman, Santa Monica, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Judith A. Lombardino, D.H. Perkins, Asst. U.S. Attys., Shreveport, La., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, RUBIN, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The sentence of the court's opinion reading "Such a claim could provide an appropriate means of examining claims of this sort" [see the last sentence of the paragraph appearing after headnote call at 801 F.2d 1474] is deleted and the following sentence is substituted:
This is not to say that a defendant's payment of fees to his counsel will always immunize such fees from post-trial forfeiture, only that a defense lawyer's knowledge of the charges against the client does not ipso facto disqualify the attorney's claim to be a bona fide purchaser under the RICO and CCE forfeiture provisions.
Except as noted herein, the Petition for Rehearing is denied. 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.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT:
/s/ Charles Clark
Chief Judge