### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J anu ary 14, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 02- 1292 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 01-00028 -CR- 01-2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us CARL M. DRURY, J R., M.D., Doctor, D ef en dant-Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J an ua ry14, 200 5) Befo re EDMONDSON, Ch ie f Ju dg e, TJOFLAT, ANDERSON, BIRCH, DUBINA, BL A CK , CA RN E S, BA RKE T T , H U L L , MA RC U S, W IL SO N and PR Y O R, Ci rc uit Judg es . BY THE COURT:2

O n F eb ru ar

y 3, 200 4, w e gr an te d r eh eari ng e n banc to co nsi de r w he the r the purely intrastate use of a f

acility of interstate com

m erce -- nam ely , a

telephone -- satisfied the jur isdictio nal requirem ents of 18 U. S. C. § 195 8, the fe deral murderfo r- hir e statut e. S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. D rury , 358 F . 3d 1 280 (1 1thCi r. 200 4) . T he lin gui sti c iss ue in the c as e w as the m eanin g of the phr as e “ use s . . . any

f ac ili ty in in te rs ta te or f

or ei gn co m

m erce ” -- s pe ci fic al ly, whe th er “ in in te rs ta te . . . com m erce ” m odified “ uses” or “ facility .” Inthe ti m e sin ce w e gr an te d r eh eari ng e n banc , Co ngr es s ha s am en de d th e statute to resolve definitiv ely that precise question. A s part of the Intelligence Re fo rm and T er ro ri sm P re ve nti on A ct

of 200 4, P ub. L . N o. 108 -4 58, 118 S ta t. 3638 , Co ngr es s am en de d § 1 958 by “ str iki ng ‘ fa ci lity

in’ and i nse rt ing ‘ fa ci lity of . ’ ” Id . § 67 04. T he ne wve rs ionof § 19 58 thus re ad s, “ Whoe ve r . . . use s . . . any fa ci lity of int er state or

f or ei gn c om

m er ce . . . . ”, the re by

obv ia tin g th e que sti on o f st atut ory co ns tru ct io n a t i ss ue in th is cas e fo r al l fu tu re co nv ic ti on s u nd er § 19 58 . T his a m en dm en t m ak es c le ar that § 1958 nowe sta

bli she s f ed er al j ur isd ic tio n whenever any “ facility of interstate com

m erce ” is used in the comm issio n of a m urder-f or-hire off

ense, r egardless of w hether the use is interstate in nature (i. e. the pho ne c al l w as be tw ee n st at es ) or pur el y intra state in na tur e (i . e. the pho ne c al l was m ad e to an ot he r te le ph on e wit hi n t he same sta te ).3

In li gh t o f th is de ve lo pm en t, t hi s ca se no lo ng er m eri ts en ba nc rev ie w. Re he ar ing e n banc is dis favor ed and o rd inari ly

w ill not be or de re d un le ss i t i s necessary to m aintain uni form ity

in the Court’ s decisions or -- as w as the case her e

-- if “ the pr oc ee din g in vol ve s aque sti on o f ex ce pti ona l i m portanc e. ” F ed . R. App. Proc. 35(a); see also 11th Cir. R. 35-3. Sim ply put, this case no long er involves such a questio n. W e theref ore V ACA TE the order of F ebruary 3, 2004 inso far as it grants rehearing en banc in this case. W e do not, however, reinstate the panel opi nio n, and i nst ea d w e RE MA N D the c as e to the pane l f or f urthe r co nsi de ratio n.