Filed: Jul. 18, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. No. 95-4403. Carl Eugene WATTS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Harry K. SINGLETARY, Respondent-Appellant. Dec. 19, 1996. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (No. 94-6258-CIV-UUB), Ursula Ungaro-Berages, Judge. ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (Opinion July 18, 1996, 11th Cir., 87 F.3d 1282 ). Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, and TJOFLAT, KRAVITCH, ANDERSON, EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES and BARK
Summary: United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. No. 95-4403. Carl Eugene WATTS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Harry K. SINGLETARY, Respondent-Appellant. Dec. 19, 1996. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (No. 94-6258-CIV-UUB), Ursula Ungaro-Berages, Judge. ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (Opinion July 18, 1996, 11th Cir., 87 F.3d 1282 ). Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, and TJOFLAT, KRAVITCH, ANDERSON, EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES and BARKE..
More
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
No. 95-4403.
Carl Eugene WATTS, Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
Harry K. SINGLETARY, Respondent-Appellant.
Dec. 19, 1996.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (No. 94-6258-CIV-UUB), Ursula Ungaro-Berages,
Judge.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
(Opinion July 18, 1996, 11th Cir., 87 F.3d 1282).
Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, and 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 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.
