Jackson v. Byrd

JACKSON, Appellant, Christine BYRD, Superintendent;

Mary Leftridge Philadelphia Attorney for

The District

County; Attorney General Pennsylvania.

State

No. 95-2118. Appeals,

United States Court

Third Circuit. 34.1(a) under Third Circuit LAR

Submitted 10, 1996.

Dec.

Decided Jan. 1997. Rehearing March Petition for

Sur an

on information from informant who people, claimed to have worked for two Len, drugs in John and who had apartment. apart-

2. Jackson was the lessee of the ment, and admitted that she had a younger brother named John who also apartment. lived in the same apartment living space had a con- 3. The room, sisting living of a combination room, kitchen, dining and addition to two bedrooms. son,

4. Jackson and her who shared one bedroom, during search. bedroom, 5. the rear found Feinstein, PA, Philadelphia, Laurence R. belonging an ice chest to Jackson which Appellant.

for bags containing contained clear each approximately plastic 40 clear vials Zucker, Chief, Litiga- Donna G. Federal cocaine, filled with crack and clear tion, Eisenberg, Deputy District At- Ronald bags containing approximately each Gordon, torney, H. Arnold First Assistant plastic packets of cocaine. There were Abraham, Attorney, Lynne District District 1,683 approximately bags and vials. Attorney, Attorney, Office of District Phila- e weight The total of th eraek/cocaine PA, delphia, Appellees. for grams. inwas excess of 250 BECKER, MANSMANN, Before: and sealer, 6. The also found a heat GREENBERG, Judges. Circuit scale, handgun, loaded .38 calibre and handgun .9 mm loaded the rear bed- OF THE COURT OPINION room. GREENBERG, Judge. cabinet, Circuit 7. In a kitchen two scales and a heat sealer. In a appeals Christine Jackson from an order bedroom, closet next to Jackson’s 15, 1995, denying entered on December bag found a duffel filled with petition corpus. for a writ of habeas These empty packets, thousands of vials and corpus proceedings arise in the after- shotgun. and a loaded 2, 1992, July math of Jackson’s conviction on bedroom, cabinets, 8. The rear kitchen at a bench trial the Court of Common closet were not locked. Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. Pleas of trial, guilty At that 9. using the court Jackson Jackson admitted to the kitchen aof controlled substance and cabinets and the closet. possession of a controlled substance with the proof residency 10. Police found for the intent It subsequently to deliver. sentenced apartment telephone the form of a years’ eight impris- her to a term of four to bill, bill, lease, an electric all of onment. which named Jackson. witness, called, expert An

The state trial made the would have findings opinion denying illegal drugs of fact a written testified the amount of post-trial paraphernalia motions: found in the apartment were indicative of 16, 1988, approximate-

1.On December deliver, with the intent to rather than ly p.m., from 10:00 officers the Philadel- possession. mere phia Department Police executed a apartment. search warrant for Jackson’s No. 8901-0957 (Pa.C.P. 22, 1993). The search warrant was executed based Jan. Based on these find- (1) 2254(d), fact, § prior trial court concluded that Under 28 U.S.C. ings of 2254(e) redesignation § its as 28 U.S.C. apart- had access to all areas of its (2) amendment section 104 of the Antiter ment, including the rear Penalty rorism and Effective Death Act of drug parapher- illegal amount of presumes a federal court that state found in the demonstrated nalia findings court of fact are correct the fol they possessed with to deliv- intent (1) lowing requirements are met: there was (3) er, willing participant was a Jackson (2) hearing issue, a on the merits a factual of dealing occurring apart- in the by findings made a state court of com ment. (3) petent jurisdiction, proceeding to appealed her conviction to the Jackson petitioner par which the and the state were Pennsylvania Superior Court which affirmed. (4) ties, by findings are evidenced Jackson, Pa.Super. v. 433 finding opinion, written or or other reliable (1993) (table). 633, 268 then 638 A.2d She adequate indicia. written See also Reese allocatur from the Su- obtained Cir.1991), Fulcomer, (3d 247, v. 946 F.2d 254-55 preme which her conviction Court affirmed denied, 988, rt. 503 U.S. 112 S.Ct. ce by equally an divided court. Commonwealth (1992). presump L.Ed.2d 396 This (1995) 556, 540 Pa. 659 A.2d 549 v. applies tion of correctness unless the state (table). on appeal She asked for relief on the fairly court’s factual determinations are not ground that the evidence was insufficient sole supported by the record. 28 U.S.C. “ support to her conviction. 2254(d)(8). 2254(d) Thus, § section ‘re- congressional policy a clear favoring fleet[ed] petition thereafter for a Jackson filed findings deference to state of fact absent district court writ of habeas good rejecting findings.’” cause for such § pursuant November to 28 U.S.C. On Reese, (quoting 946 F.2d at 256 Nelson v. 15, 1995, magistrate judge report issued a Fulcomer, (3d Cir.1990)). 928, 932 deny recommending that the district court petition prob- and find that there was no courts, however, Federal do not ac 15,1995, appeal. 2254(d) cause to On December able cord deference under section to state adopted report the district court this legal rulings. court See McAleese Mazur (3d kiewicz, 159, Cir.), 1 petition. F.3d 166 cert. de recommendation denied nied, 1028, 645, 510 114 S.Ct. 126 U.S. granted appealed, and we Jackson (1993). Similarly, L.Ed.2d 603 courts request probable for a of certificate by any legal are not bound ultimate conclu appeal issue on this is cause. The sole by deciding sion a state court in reached supported evidence Jack whether sufficient question Deputy mixed of law and fact. charges possession son’s conviction on (3d 1485, Cir.), Taylor, 19 1494 cert. F.3d possession controlled substance and of a con — denied, —, 2730, U.S. S.Ct. trolled substance with the intent to deliver. (1994). course, “specific Of Inasmuch as the district court relied on the by court in the historical facts found a state record, plenary exercise re state court deciding question] [a course of mixed are the district court’s order on this view of 2254(d) subject by they § to deference unless Fulcomer, appeal. Zettlemoyer v. supported are not the record.” Id. at (3d denied, 284, 902, Cir.), cert. 502 U.S. 1494-95. (1991). 112 S.Ct. 116 L.Ed.2d 232 We indicated, in this As we have the sole issue Antiterror do not consider effect ease is whether there was sufficient evidence Penalty ism and Effective Death Act of possession Jackson’s conviction 104-132, Pub.L. 110 Stat. which Con possession of a of a controlled substance and gress pending, enacted while this controlled substance with the intent to deliv- law, may prior under which because even process er. Fourteenth Amendment due have been less deferential to the state court guarantees protect an individual from “suf- (see case, proceedings than now would be the fer[ing] the onus of a criminal conviction Morton, 1089, 1103-04 Berryman v. F.3d as except upon proof sufficient evi- —defined (3d Cir.1996)), is not entitled to ha necessary Jackson convince a trier of fact beyond of the existence of a reasonable doubt beas relief. shared with v. band found the bedroom he offense.” Jackson every element fiancee, stated, today 307, 316, the court hold “[w]e his Virginia, relationship con that even absent a marital In a federal L.Ed.2d may be found either sufficiency where corpus proceeding in an actors if contraband is found both issue, Virgi joint equal Mu area of control and access.” applicable standard: nia sets forth drick, at 1214. In contrast to these 507 A.2d of the suffi- inquiry on review critical [T]he cases, prove a three it is more difficult to support a crimi- ciency of the evidence prosecu if the ease require a .... nal conviction does tion does not demonstrate that the defendant it believes that whether court to ‘ask itself recover resides the home where the guilt trial established at the the evidence v. Val the contraband. See Commonwealth Instead, ... beyond a doubt.’ reasonable ette, (1992); 384, Pa. A.2d 548 Com 531 613 whether, after question is the relevant 44, Rodriguez, Pa.Super. 422 monwealth v. light in fa- viewing the the most 1007.(1993). 618 A.2d any rational prosecution, vorable to the naturally respect to the facts with While found the essential trier of fact could have posses whether a defendant has constructive beyond crime a reasonable elements of the case, vary in each in sion of contraband doubt. Aviles, 345, Pa.Super. 419 Commonwealth v. (citations 318-19, at 2788-89 99 S.Ct. Id. at (1992) (in banc), A.2d cert. de omitted) original). (emphasis in the —nied, 78, —, parties agree prosecu that the The (1994), Pennsylvania Superior the prove that had actual tion could not Court found that the defendant had construc drugs possession of the cocaine because the drugs in a case similar tive not on her apartment, in found Consequently, signifi to this one. Aviles is a Thus, sought to person. prosecution the precedent appeal. cant on this There the posses prove that Jackson had constructive defendant, Aviles, in leased a rowhouse which by the Penn sion of cocaine. As defined the the and rear bedrooms subleased middle Court, posses sylvania Supreme slept sister and Aviles brother-in-law. is conscious dominion over sion of contraband with her three children in the front bedroom. it, substance, power to control illegal the search, During police drugs found exercise the control. Com and the intent to drug paraphernalia in middle and rear Mudrick, 305, v. 510 Pa. 507 A.2d monwealth Superior bedrooms. The Court found Carroll, 1212, 1213(1986); Commonwealth bedrooms, stating all Aviles had access to 299, 819, (1986); 507 A.2d 820-21 510 Pa. was, all, that she after the lessee. Id. 615 Macolino, Pa. A.2d at 403. The court also cited additional determining Since A.2d facts to the conviction: an informant posses had constructive whether defendant had witnessed Aviles’s sister and brother-in- “bright is not amenable to sion of contraband engaging in law activities at the resi Carroll, tests, 507 A.2d at line” dence; Aviles was at the time of the may finder of fact infer an intent to maintain search; containing and the bedrooms totality of dominion from the drugs conscious were next to defendant’s bedroom. Id. Macolino, 469 A.2d at 134. circumstances. interpretations recent Under the Macolino, Supreme Pennsylvania In courts, state the find Court found that the defendant husband had ings of fact made in Jackson’s case sufficient to, equal posses- access and thus constructive ly pos support her conviction of constructive of, in bedroom he sion contraband found drugs. session of Jackson admitted that she shared wife. Id. 469 A.2d at 135-36. with his apartment, was the sole lessee of the and the possession in The court found constructive police proof residency in of her in bill, Carroll when the found contraband bill, telephone form of an electric and a husband lease, Furthermore, the hotel room that the defendant all in Jackson’s name. Carroll, A.2d at conflicting testimony shared with his wife. in the face between Mudrick, Finally finding that the officer and the state trial constructively testimony possessed contra- court found credible the officer’s defendant anything rear the room which the brother’s bedroom was that the other than a drugs, private place subject police found the which Jackson’s to his exclusive control. used, Also, Aviles, however, not locked. it In Superior brother Court found disputed that at the pos- time executed the defendant was in constructive only Jackson and her infant son drugs the warrant session of the in a situation in which were in the so that her brother the defendant owned or leased and lived in could not have excluded her the time if she drugs the residence where the were found. sought to enter the rear bedroom. Although Virginia Jackson v. sets Accordingly, judge reasonably the trial forth a sufficiency test for found that Jackson had to and control applicable evidence which is corpus habeas apartment, all including areas of the proceedings, federal courts addition, rear bedroom. the trial proceedings nevertheless look to the evi respect considered the facts adequate dence the state considers to meet intent to control the contraband: governed by elements of a crime state (1) containing the ice chest be- Detella, Brumley law. See (2) Jackson; longed (7th Cir.1996); Mitchell, 862-65 Chalmers v. scales, drug paraphernalia, e.g., weight a heat Cir.) (2d 1272-73 (deferring to sealer, empty packets, thousands of vials and state’s view of what constituted sufficient shotgun, and a loaded in the kitchen cabinet crimes), evidence to convict on state cert. and the closet that Jackson shared with her — denied, —, 106, 117 S.Ct. totality brother. Based of the circum- (1996). Pennsylvania considers stances, judge trial guilty found Jackson being a lessee or owner of the residence an possession of constructive and constructive important establishing factor in dominion and possession with intent to distribute. Com- control over the contraband. While it is true Jackson, 8901-0957, slip monwealth v. No. police drugs that the found the in Jackson’s op. at 2-6. significance brother’s of this point finding by

We out that the state circumstance is diluted the facts that the unlocked, trial that Jackson owned the ice chest only bedroom was Jackson and though appeal young unassailable. Even on the present police son were when the exe argues warrant, she that she had discarded the ice containing cuted the ice chest warrant, Jackson, drugs chest before the executed the belonged drug and the Jackson testified at the paraphernalia shotgun trial that she owned and a located the ice when chest she first moved into the the closet next to Jackson’s bedroom and in apartment. Overall, While she testified that after she kitchen-cabinets. we are con acquired refrigerator no she had further strained to conclude there was sufficient evi chest, need for the ice any she also testified that dence for rational trier of fact to find the “I give anyone. just didn’t the ice beyond chest to I essential elements of the crime put the ice I chest aside because was no reasonable doubt.

longer using Clearly, it.” gave she never result, reaching In our we have not over ice chest to her brother for she did not even Jenkins, looked United States v. 90 F.3d 814 using know that he was it. (3d Cir.1996), Brown, and United States v. recognize (3d Cir.), denied,

We that Jackson testified that F.3d 673 cert. 510 U.S. brother, John, younger 1017, 615, used the rear 126 L.Ed.2d 579 bedroom, while she and her son shared the Jenkins and appeals Brown were direct . Furthermore, front bedroom we realize possession in which cases any that the drugs, drug did not find we found that the evidence was not sufficient paraphernalia, weapons cases, Jackson’s bed to sustain convictions. These howev Thus, er, person. room or on her distinguishable Jackson un are from this one on the derstandably Jenkins, relationship contrasts her with facts. In the defendant was relationships very her brother to familial different situation than as he the defendants with charged other co-tenants in Ma- was with constructive colino, Carroll, Mudrick, asserting drugs apartment in an of which he was not lessee, the state failed to point emphasized evidence that her we in our law. 816, under state and federal Zettle Similarly, in sion opinion. 90 F.3d Cf. (In charged con- a habeas moyer, 923 F.2d at appellant was Brown the drags in a house to conviction “we a state proceeding resided, or in which she power access supervisory she had which do not exercise leased. owned nor neither she convic but which from a might possess on an Furthermore, appellant’s of the Brown court.”). none in the district tion where rooms were found possessions aforesaid, we will affirm In view drags were seized. 15,1995. of December order because different situation was had apartment and was the lessee she BECKER, dissenting. Judge, Circuit it, parts circumstances which to all possession” has The term “constructive a conclusion that tend to logically meaning, which does differ precise legal apart- possession of the had constructive (here Pennsylva federal and state between addition, in Jen- In unlike ment’s contents. nia) constructively possess a con To law. Brown, police found the kins must have conscious substance one trolled chest, container, ie., the ice in this case it, and control over intend dominion or owned. that Jackson or control. that dominion United exercise this differ from Brown also Jenkins and (3d. Jenkins, 817-18 States v. respect. important Jen- in another case Brown, Cir.1996); United States when the entered kins (3d Cir.1993); Commonwealth appellant than the adults other there were Mudrick, 305, 507 A.2d 510 Pa. inside, entered and in Brown when Carroll, (1986); Pa. not even there. appellant was the house the (1986); 819, 820-21 Common 507 A.2d Rather, adult in the house another Macolino, A.2d 503 Pa. wealth v. upon the scene later. appellant came view, in 132, 134 my the evidence In because, as different situation was Jackson’s not, process, a matter of due this case will as out, except for her already pointed have we Virginia, 443 U.S. see Jackson son, in the young she was alone (1979), L.Ed.2d S.Ct. warrant. Of the when the executed for con of Jackson the conviction Christine drags course, ready to the as had she. possession of the cocaine contained they rear bedroom. were in the unlocked I in brother’s room. within the ice chest facts, other facts we as well These as analysis I to an dissent. turn first therefore forth, for the reasonable set made it have record, legal to the and then issues. that fact to conclude court as the trier of trial control and had conscious dominion Jackson I. apartment, in the contraband found over the if in this case even thus we would affirm A. appeal from a deciding this case on we majority opinion is its linchpin The It therefore follows court conviction. district Jackson, that because was conclusion overreaching if we reversed be that we would apartment, had access to and lessee of the of petition for a writ denial of Jackson’s apartment, of all areas of the includ- control circumstances, corpus. In these habeas brother, by ing rear used bedroom is a whether there no to consider have need chest and the and hence of the ice cocaine. in eases range of constructive view, supported by my this is In conclusion reverse facts we would which on the same the law nor the facts. neither deny but would convictions under federal law has cited no es- The Commonwealth case challenging corpus petitions confine tablishing, property of real as a matter See Brum following state convictions. ment enter, otherwise, or that a lessee can his or 856; Chalmers, 73 F.3d 1262. ley, at will. Nor her sublessee’s room does could be such principle, arguably entry suggest or access as record such cases, simply group of as the distinction fact, Finally, only contrary. of matter in the reflect differences definition would nothing importantly, there is in the most posses- constructive what conduct constituted by dissenting opinion Pennsylvania that a conscious intention record reflects Su- preme to exercise dominion or control over Court in this I Jackson case.1 note in this drugs, regard or the bedroom or the from which that Jackson’s conviction was af- by Pennsylvania could be inferred. Supreme such an intention firmed Court in a 3-3 Zappala’s vote. Justice forceful trial made much of The state dissent, which articulates the same concerns “belonged” fact that the ice chest express herein, joined I was Justice but the uncontradieted evidence is that she (now Chief) Cappy and Flaherty, Justice so got refrigerator it when she had discarded that of the Supreme current using and did not know that her brother was Justices, Court the vote was 3-2 favor of drugs. Although it to store I Jackson. do not believe that Aviles would the door to her brother’s room unlocked approved by Pennsylvania’s present be high (Jackson always thought it had court. locked), there is no evidence that she was room, much less what It juris- ever knew its seems clear to me that under our see, posses- prudence, Jenkins, None of e.g., contents were. United States (3d Cir.1996), sions was her brother’s 90 F.3d 814 and United States fingerprints any Brown, (3d Cir.1993), nor were her detected on of v. 3 F.3d 673 the evi- or items against other seized. would Jackson be insufficient to sustain a conviction based was, sure, drug para- There some to.be possession. The facts in Brown are similar phernalia shotgun common area of acting the facts tip, Jackson’s case: on a apartment. shotguns But are not the drugs. searched Brown’s for home dealers, weapon among drug of choice search, During the Ama Baltimore arrived at inherently support thus cannot an inference house, lock, key inserted a into the drug possession. drug parapher- And the protested, was arrested as she entered. She nalia, it, simply even Jackson knew about you “But my can’t arrest I me because am in enough to link the cocaine room, upstairs sewing own house.” In the any or to her brother’s room kind of pair found a of shorts and a switch- dealing, given inculpato- the absence of other blade, both of which Baltimore admitted ry surely supply facts. And it does not Large quantities heroin, were hers. co- of conscious dominion control. powder, caine and crack cocaine were found Indeed, drug paraphernalia while the kitchen, in refrigerator the the kitchen may logically kitchen cabinet and closet dem- closet, upstairs and one of the bedrooms. onstrate that Jackson’s brother had dominion Equipment cook, supplies prepare, and to and control over the common areas of the cut, and distribute the were also found apartment, suggest it does not that Jackson in the bedroom. had dominion or control over the bedroom which, record, subject on this was to her This Court Baltimore’s convic overturned exclusive, private brother’s use. tion possession, for insufficient evidence of that, holding although the showed evidence

B. to, that she had or in access resided the majority puts presence drugs, The case that the most stock house and knew of the in, not, position essentially more, on which its it did without that establish she falls, Aviles, stands or is Commonwealth v. had conscious dominion or control over the (1992) (in Brown, Pa.Super. 419 drugs. 615 A.2d 398 3 F.3d at “[M]ere 682-83. — banc), denied, U.S. —, proximity cert. drug presence to the or mere on I property find Aviles of the it is where located mere person little value. Aviles was a 5-4 decision of an association with the who does control (which appellate drug court property, intermediate is not the or the is to insufficient deference, only weight entitled to but finding possession.” to it at 680 Id. not). which, think, Davis, persuasive, (citing is I it is It United v. States (3d Cir.1972)). majority was not cited in either the or the 1036 1. It is not also even cited the Commonwealth in its brief. eases, simply distinction Baltimore,, group of as the neither noted that further We in the definition differences would reflect any in possessions, were any nor constructive constituted of what conduct seized, drugs were the where of the rooms law. possession under state federal any of found on was fingerprints of her none (In a at Zettlemoyer, F.2d and there paraphernalia, drugs or Cf. following a state corpus proceeding that she ever exerted evidénce

was no other supervi- do not exercise “we conviction drug parapher- drugs or any over control an might possess on sory power that we Brown, in facts 683. The Id. at nalia. in the district a conviction from she believed, conclusion that supported the court.”). residence, but at to or resided had access disclaimer, find it elusive but applaud I drugs. over control exercised not that she conclusion unconvincing. I draw this Id. at 682. fact, is, being in unitary if a standard because case, from aside Similarly, in the instant (or strayed from majority has imposed, the sought to be drawn from link the tenuous diluted) impor- I it cases. think the federal drug paraphernalia, ice chest and discarded that, for the regard make clear in this tant to finding supports a nothing in the record analysis, can be no Virginia previous- stated possession. As constructive conduct of what the definition difference possessions ly, of Jackson’s none possession. constructive constitutes fin- nor were her in her brother’s noted, Pennsylvania’s defini previously As any drugs or on detected gerprints identical possession” tion of is “constructive fact, the evidence Other items seized. it is true While federal definition. to the merely with her consistent case is Jackson’s deferred that courts have sometimes federal apartment, but or residence interpretations of what and their to states Brown, drugs. See control over the with no evidence convict sufficient constitutes (concluding that while F.3d at 681 Detella, crimes, Brumley see state Balti- to show that may be sufficient Cir.1996); (7th Deputy Com Moore v. knew the home residing at more was SCI-Huntingdpn, 946 F.2d missioner of house, evi- drugs were in that (3d Cir.1991), in which these were instances finding support a not dence did strictly at state courts looked federal over control dominion Or exercised analogous stat was no because there majori- Hence, disagree I drugs). Mitchell, F.3d But see Chalmers ute. case Jackson’s ty’s position that the facts (2d Cir.1996). appeal, howev constructive the federal meet since, er, distinguishable addition standard. law, law has defined state federal case also possession. interpreted II. above, I the evi- As stated believe that hold, expressly so Although it does to meet is insufficient Jackson’s case seems to intimate majority nonetheless of construc- definitions state federal cor- sufficiency on habeas legal standard Pennsylvania’s But even possession. tive (and diluted) when pus is somehow different possession were for standard constructive is at than conviction rather federal state (which not), be incorrect it is it would lower explicitly disclaims such majority issue. The disposition of manifestly unjust for the apply a that it would holding, suggesting depending on the to differ unitary standard: federal, forum, that because evidence state circumstances, have no need to In these process meet federal due standards fails to range of con- is a whether there consider to meet be insufficient forum should in which possession cases process due of federal guarantees reverse convictions facts we would words, regardless same of court. In other state deny heard, would under federal but case is in which the the forum standard, process challenging corpus petitions satisfying federal due for confinement Brwmley, especially true in This is See be uniform. state convictions. should state Chalmers, fact the federal and 856; light 73 F.3d 1262. similar, are for statutes arguably could be such principle, the definitions are (federal)

identical, Virgi and the Jackson v. HOPKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, Vera Mae nia, S.Ct. 61 L.Ed.2d (1979), reviewing sufficiency for standard perforce overarching of the evidence is AT & T GLOBAL INFORMATION SOLU note, moreover, standard. I also COMPANY, formerly TIONS known as sufficiency standard of review for of the evi Corporation, NCR Defendant-Appellee. is identical to the fed No. 96-1363. Virginia eral standard. Evans v. Pleas,

Court Common United States Appeals, Court of (3d Cir.1992). Fourth Circuit.

III. Argued Oct. 1996. justi- Because there is an absence of facts Decided Jan. fying an inference that Jackson had con- scious dominion or control over the contra-

band, or that intended to exercise that control, pro-

dominion or as a matter of due

cess this conviction should not stand. Ac-

cordingly, I reverse the would district court’s

denial of habeas relief. SLOVITER, Judge,

Before Chief

BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN,

GREENBERG, SCIRICA, COWEN,

NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH, LEWIS, and

McKEE, Judges. Circuit

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING

March petition rehearing

The for filed

appellant, Christine above

captioned having matter been submitted to judges participated who decision

this court and to all the other cir- available judges regular

cuit of the court in active

service, and no who concurred having rehearing,

decision for asked

majority judges of the circuit circuit

regular having active service not for voted

rehearing by banc, petition the court en rehearing

for is denied.

Judge grant rehearing by Becker would

the court en banc for the reasons set forth in dissenting Judge

his opinion. Stapleton, Seirica,

Judge Judge Nygaard, Lewis, Judge Judge grant rehearing by would McKee

the court en bane.

Case Details

Case Name: Jackson v. Byrd

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Date Published: Jan 29, 1997

Citation: 105 F.3d 145

Docket Number: 95-2118

Court Abbreviation: 3rd Cir.