Case Name: Wen Ho LEE, Appellee v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Appellees Jeff Gerth, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-02
Citations: 428 F.3d 299
Docket Number: No. 04-5301
Parties: Wen Ho LEE, Appellee v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Appellees Jeff Gerth, Appellant.
Judges: Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, EDWARDS, SENTELLE, HENDERSON, RANDOLPH, ROGERS, TATEL, GARLAND, BROWN and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 428
Pages: 299–303

Head Matter:
Wen Ho LEE, Appellee v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Appellees Jeff Gerth, Appellant.
No. 04-5301.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Nov. 2, 2005.
Betsy Alexandra Miller, Jones Day, Washington, DC, for Wen Ho Lee.
Brian Alfred Sun, Jones Day, Los Ange-les, CA, Anthony Joseph Coppolino, U.S. Department of Justice, Lee Levine, David A. Schulz, Levine Sullvian Koch & Schulz, Washington, DC, Charles David Tobin, Holland & Knight, Washington, DC, Floyd Abrams, Joel Laurence Kurtzberg, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, New York, NY, for Appellees.
Donald J. Mulvihill, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, Washington, DC, for Appellant.
Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, EDWARDS, SENTELLE, HENDERSON, RANDOLPH, ROGERS, TATEL, GARLAND, BROWN and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges.
. Circuit Judges Edwards, Rogers, Tatel, and Garland would grant the petitions for rehearing en banc.
. A separate statement by Circuit Judge Rogers, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, is attached.
. A separate statement by Circuit Judge Tatel, with whom Circuit Judge Garland joins, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, is attached.
. A separate statement by Circuit Judge Garland, with whom Circuit Judge Tatel joins, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, is attached.
. Circuit Judges Brown and Griffith did not participate in this matter.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Appellants' petitions for rehearing en banc in Nos. 04-5302, 04-5321, 04-5322, and 04-5323, and the response thereto were circulated to the full court, and a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the judges of the court in regular, active service did not vote in favor of the petitions. Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the petitions be denied.