Case ID: f3d_232/html/0844-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BY THE COURT:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Lawrence RILEY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 99-2426.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Nov. 8, 2000.
    Ellis Rexwood Curry, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Rachelle DesVaux Bedke, Tamra Phipps, Karen Cox, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Before TJOFLAT, COX and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
   BY THE COURT:

We sua sponte grant rehearing in this appeal. Our opinion is published at 211 F.3d 1207 (11th Cir.2000).

After we filed our opinion in this appeal, but before the mandate issued, the Supreme Court decided Castillo v. United States, 530 U.S. 120, 120 S.Ct. 2090, 147 L.Ed.2d 94 (2000), which casts doubt on the correctness of our ruling rejecting Riley’s challenge to the enhanced penalty the district court imposed on him under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). We accordingly vacate the portion of our prior opinion addressing the § 924(c) sentencing issue and direct the clerk to schedule the appeal for oral argument on that issue before a regular oral-argument panel.

REHEARING GRANTED; OPINION VACATED IN PART; ORAL ARGUMENT GRANTED IN PART.