
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel YEPIZ, AKA Martin Sanchez, “Seal G,” and “Pony,” Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis Mejia, AKA Jose Luiz Mejia, Jose Nernedes, Juan Martinez, Jose Mejia, Check Mejia, Jose Al Mejia, Joe Morin, Jose L. Mejia, “Checho,” “Joe,” and “Cheech,” Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Zambrano, AKA “Franky Boy” and “Franky,” Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Contreras, AKA Jessie Contreras, and “Yuck,” Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mariano Meza, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio Mejia, AKA Robert Mesa, “Seal JJ,” and “Jaws,” Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gilberto Carrasco, AKA Gilberto Carrasco, Jr., Gil Carrasco, Robert Carrasco, Gilberto Carrosco, Gilberto Corrosco, Julio Gonazalez, Vicente Hernandez, Vincente Hernandez, Vincente NMN Hernandez, Sergio Renteria, Juan Rosas, “Beto,” “Betillo,” “Red,” and “Cejas,” Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernesto Orozco Mendez, AKA “Gordo,” “El Gordo,” Ernesto Mijares, Ernesto Mendoza Mijares, Ernesto Mendoza Orozco (Birth Name), Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael Yepiz, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-50051, No. 07-50062, No. 07-50063, No. 07-50067, No. 07-50070, No. 07-50098, No. 07-50133, No. 07-50142, No. 07-50264
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Filed November 20, 2017
    L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, for United States of America.
    Verna Jean Wefald, Esquire, Attorney, Attorney at Law, Pasadena, CA, for Manuel Yepiz.
    Phillip A. Trevino, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Phillip A. Trevino, Los Angeles, CA, for Jose Luis Mejia.
    Shawn R. Perez, Attorney, Law Office of Shawn R. Perez, Las Vegas, NV, for Francisco Zambrano.
    Philip Deitch, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Philip Deitch Law Offices, Santa Monica, CA, for Jesus Contreras.
    Donald Randolph, Esquire, Randolph & Associates, Santa Monica, CA, for Mariano Meza.
    Diane E. Berley, Attorney, Diane E. Berley, Attorney at Law, West Hills, CA, for Sergio Mejia.
    Adam Axelrad, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of-Adam Axelrad, Los Angeles,- CA, for Gilberto Carrasco.
    Gary Paul Burcham, Burcham & Zugman, San Diego, CA, for Ernesto Orozco Mendez.
    Katherine Kimball Windsor, Esquire, Law Office of Katherine Kimball Windsor, Pasadena, CA, for Rafael Yepiz.
    Before: STEPHEN REINHARDT, M. MARGARET McKEOWN, and JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Judge McKeown was drawn to replace Judge Noonan on the' panel following his death. Judge McKeown has read the briefs, reviewed the record, and listened to the oral argument,
    
   ORDER

The opinion and partial dissent filed December 20, 2016, arid' appearing at 844 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2016), are withdrawn. The opinion may not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit. A concurrently issued amended memorandum disposition ' addresses all of the issues before the court.

Pursuant to the court’s May 31, 2017 order (No. 07-50051, Docket Entry No. 352), the following motions, submitted pro se by appellant Jose Luis Mejia, will not be considered: his April 10 and May 22, 2017 motions to join in other appellants’ petitions for rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc (No. 07-50051, Docket Entry Nos. 333, 348); his April 24, 2017 motion for leave to supplement his petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc (No. 07-50051, Docket Entry No. 345), his May 24, 2017 motion to terminate hearing with the Appellate Commissioner (No. 07-50051; Docket Entry No. 350), and his June 30, 2017 motion'for reconsideration (No. 07-50051, Docket Entry No. 353).

The panel has voted to deny the petitions for panel rehearing and to deny the petitions for rehearing en banc. The full court has been advised of the petitions for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petitions for panel rehearing and the petitions for rehearing en banc are denied.  