United States v. Goldin Industries, Inc.

219 F.3d 1268

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: June 29, 2000
• Docket: 97-6163
• Status: Published

Opinion

PUBLISH

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MAY 17 2000 No. 97-6163 THOMAS K. KAHN ________________________ CLERK

D. C. Docket No. 95-00158-CR-5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GOLDIN INDUSTRIES, INC., GOLDIN OF ALABAMA, INC., et al.,

Defendants-Appellants.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama _________________________

Before ANDERSON, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES, BARKETT, HULL, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

A member of this court in active service having requested a poll on whether

hearing en banc should be granted, and a majority of the judges in this court in active service having voted in favor of granting a hearing en banc solely on the issue of

whether this court’s holding in United States v. Hartley, 678 F.2d 961 (11thCir. 1982),

that the person named in an indictment need not be distinct from the enterprise named

therein for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), should be overturned.

IT IS ORDERED that the issue shall be heard by this court en banc.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may adopt the supplemental briefs

that they have submitted on this issue as their en banc briefs. Alternatively, if either

party wishes to augment its brief, it may do so by filing such brief within seven (7)

days of this order, in which event the other party may file a reply brief within seven

(7) days thereafter. The briefs shall conform to the requirements for en banc briefs

provided in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35 and the attendant local rules.