[EL] no cert. petition in Van Hollen campaign disclosure case?

[Rick Hasen]

I was looking at the Court of Appeals docket and here are the most recent entries:

10/04/2016

MANDATE ISSUED TO CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT. [15-5016, 15-5017]

View<javascript:void(0);>Batch Download<https://1.next.westlaw.com/Docket/Pdf/BatchDownload?documentGuid=I5DE41F43A2A211E4B4BAFA136B480AD2&pdfIndex=1&originationContext=document&transitionType=Document&contextData=(sc.RelatedInfo)>


09/26/2016

PER CURIAM ORDER, EN BANC, [1637563] FILED DENYING APPELLEE VAN HOLLEN'S PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC [ 1602481-2<javascript:void(0);> ]. BEFORE JUDGES: GARLAND,* HENDERSON, ROGERS, TATEL, BROWN, GRIFFITH, KAVANAUGH, SRINIVASAN, MILLETT, PILLARD AND WILKINS. * CHIEF JUDGE GARLAND DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THIS MATTER. [15-5016, 15-5017]


So if the 90 days ran from the date of the en banc order, the time for a cert petition has passed.

Is that right?  Anyone have any insight on why cert. was not sought?

Thanks.

Rick

--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org<http://electionlawblog.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170103/61731126/attachment.html>