Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank J. VADINO, Elio Perez-Herrera, Ivan L. Stephans, Eduardo Comesana, and Ralph Natale, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1982-11-15
Citations: 691 F.2d 977
Docket Number: No. 80-5716
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank J. VADINO, Elio Perez-Herrera, Ivan L. Stephans, Eduardo Comesana, and Ralph Natale, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, RONEY and WOOD , Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 691
Pages: 977–978

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank J. VADINO, Elio Perez-Herrera, Ivan L. Stephans, Eduardo Comesana, and Ralph Natale, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 80-5716.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Nov. 15, 1982.
Jeffrey M. Miller, Philadelphia, Pa., for Vadino and Natale.
Lin Brett-Major, Ft. Lauderdale, for Comesana.
William R. Tunkey, Ronald A. Dion, Miami, Fla., for Perez-Herrera.
Geoffrey C. Fleck, Miami, Fla., for Stephans.
Carmen C. Nasuti, Philadelphia, Pa., for Natale.
William C. Bryson, Joel M. Gershowitz, U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee.
ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING AND PETITIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC
(Opinion July 19, 1982, 11 Cir., 1982, 680 F.2d 1329)
Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, RONEY and WOOD , Circuit Judges.
Honorable Harlington Wood, Jr., U. S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
We said with respect to Stephans that his participation in the conspiracy was established by overwhelming evidence independent of the Perez-Herrera statements. We recited that independent evidence. To erase any doubt of what we meant by our holding, admissibility of the Perez-Herrera statements against Stephans was harmless error beyond reasonable doubt under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).
The petitions for rehearing of Stephans, Comesana, Natale and Vadino are DENIED, 680 F.2d 1329, and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Eleventh Circuit Rule 26), the suggestions for Rehearing En Banc of Stephans, Comesana, Natale and Vadino are DENIED.