Now this is definitely the shortest opinion of the Ninth Circuit en banc I have ever read:

During a grand jury proceeding, defendant gave a rambling, non-responsive answer to a simple question. Because there is insufficient evidence that Statement C was material, defendant's conviction for obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 is not supported by the record. Whatever section 1503's scope may be in other circumstances, defendant's conviction here must be reversed.

A reversal for insufficient evidence implicates defendant's right under the Double Jeopardy Clause. See United States v. Preston, 751 F.3d 1008, 1028 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (citing Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 11 (1978)). His conviction and sentence must therefore be vacated, and he may not be tried again on that count.

That's the whole thing.  The eleven judges on the pseudo-en-banc panel are so fractured that the court issued this brief disposition "per curiam" (by the court as an institution with no identified individual author) and then various judges weighed in with lengthy concurring and dissenting opinions.

Judge Rawlinson dissented, citing Ernest Lawrence Thayer.  "There is no joy in this dissenting judge. The per curiam and concurring opinions have struck out."   What's up with that?  The defendant is Barry Bonds.