U.S. v. Miller
| Decision Date | 15 January 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-8714,88-8714 |
| Citation | 923 F.2d 158 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis MILLER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
William A. Morrison, Atlanta, Ga. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.
Mary Jane Stewart, Asst. U.S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., Geoffrey Brigham, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Crim. Div. Appellate Section, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; Marvin H. Shoob, Judge.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
(Opinion September 25, 1989, 11th Cir., 1989, 883 F.2d 1540)
Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, FAY, KRAVITCH, JOHNSON, HATCHETT, ANDERSON, CLARK, EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
A member of this court in active service having requested a poll on the application for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in this court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc.
IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this court en banc without oral argument during the week of June 10, 1991. The clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of en banc briefs. The previous panel's opinion is hereby VACATED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Lehder-Rivas
...bad acts. United States v. Miller, 883 F.2d 1540, 1544 (11th Cir.1989), vacated and en banc review granted on unrelated grounds, 923 F.2d 158 (11th Cir.1991). Because Lehder's method of labeling his cocaine packages was not critical to the prosecution's establishment of a conspiracy, the di......
-
L'Aquarius v. Hargett
... ... However, we agree with the trial court that Mr. L'Aquarius' claim challenging his conditions of confinement is not properly before us ... According to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), a federal court may not entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus unless "it appears ... ...
-
Holman v. Booker
... ... R.Doc. 1, at 8. The district court, in the case before us, stated that "Petitioner has generated a confusing maelstrom of litigation that benefits neither him nor the interests of justice." R.Doc. 5, at 2 ... ...
-
U.S. v. Miller
...Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). 883 F.2d 1540 (11th Cir.1989). The panel opinion was vacated when the case was ordered to be reheard en banc. 923 F.2d 158 (11th Cir.1991). The case was submitted to the en banc court for rehearing on October 7, 1991. We now affirm, concluding that Miller's several claim......