Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles PARKER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1997-01-14
Citations: 104 F.3d 72
Docket Number: No. 94-10557
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles PARKER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and KING, GARWOOD, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DUHÉ, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 104
Pages: 72–75

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles PARKER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 94-10557.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 14, 1997.
Kathleen A. Felton, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Frank D. Able, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Dallas, TX, for plaintiff-appellee.
Peter Michael Fleury; Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for defendant-appellant.
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and KING, GARWOOD, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DUHÉ, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ROBERT M. PARKER, Circuit Judge:
We granted rehearing en banc to consider whether the district court correctly instruct ed the Appellant Charles Parker, Jr.'s ("Parker") jury on the elements of a Hobbs Act offense, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and whether, if the instruction was erroneous, the error was subject to a harmless error analysis.
The panel opinion on petition for rehearing, relying on United States v. Gaudin, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 2310, 132 L.Ed.2d 444 (1995), concluded that the trial judge erred by reserving for himself the question of whether or not the alleged acts of Appellant Parker affected interstate commerce. Having reviewed the record and the briefs and arguments of the parties, we have determined that the trial court committed no Gau-din-type error. Any error that existed in the charge given below was harmless. We therefore leave for another day the question whether Gaudin error, i.e. a failure to submit an essential element of a crime to the jury, is subject to a harmlessness analysis.
The remaining portions of the panel opinion on petition for rehearing, including the discussions of the denial of Parker's motion to reopen, the interstate commerce element in the indictment and double jeopardy, are reinstated. See United States v. Parker, 73 F.3d 48, 53-55 (5th Cir.1996).
We AFFIRM Parker's Hobbs Act convictions, REVERSE his § 924(c) convictions, VACATE his sentence, and REMAND this cause to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, VACATED and REMANDED.