Housel v. Head

PUBLISH
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
FILED
No. 98-8830 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ APR 06, 2001
THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
TRACY LEE HOUSEL,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
FREDERICK J. HEAD,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(April 6, 2001)
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Before DUBINA, CARNES and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Tracy Lee Housel has petitioned this court for rehearing and has
suggested rehearing en banc. Among other arguments, he points out that the court
misspoke in describing the concurring opinion in Devier v. Zant, 3 F.3d 1445 (11th
Cir. 1993), and that the court did not discuss the large body of state-court authority
concerning the treatment of unadjudicated crimes in capital sentencing. We GRANT
the petition for panel rehearing to make two changes to our opinion, which is
published at 238 F.3d 1289.
First, the sentence “But it has never been accepted in any form by a majority of
this court or the Supreme Court,” found on page 1297, is replaced with “But no
Supreme Court majority has ever accepted it, and two judges of this court espoused
it only in dicta.”
Second, the sentence that begins “Perhaps since last a court visited the question
. . .,” also found on page 1297, should begin “Perhaps since last this court or the
Supreme Court visited the question . . . .”
The petition is otherwise DENIED. No member of this panel nor any other
judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be polled
on rehearing en banc, the suggestion of rehearing en banc is also DENIED.
2