Watts v. Singletary

[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 95-4403
_______________________
D.C. Docket No. 94-6258-CIV-UUB
CARL EUGENE WATTS,
Petitioner-Appellee,
versus
HARRY K. SINGLETARY,
Respondent-Appellant.
_______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_______________________
(December 19, 1996)
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
(Opinion July 18, 1996, 11th Cir., 87 F.3d 1282)
Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, KRAVITCH, ANDERSON,
EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The Court having been polled at the request of one of the
members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are
in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule
1
35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Eleventh Circuit Rule
35-5), the Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.
BARKETT, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the order of the majority of the
court in denying the petition of appellee Carl Watts for en banc
rehearing. This case presents important issues which, for
reasons stated in Judge Carnes’s dissent, were erroneously
decided.
2