Case Name: Mario A. GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-11
Citations: 568 F.3d 1369
Docket Number: No. 2007-3309
Parties: Mario A. GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent.
Judges: Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, MAYER, LOURIE, RADER, SCHALL, BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, PROST, and MOORE, Circuit Judges, and WALKER, Chief District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 568
Pages: 1369–1374

Head Matter:
Mario A. GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent.
No. 2007-3309.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
June 11, 2009.
Sean Lafferty, Lafferty & Lafferty, of Burlington, Massachusetts, filed a petition for rehearing en banc for petitioner.
Carrie A. Dunsmore, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, filed a response to the petition for respondent. With her on the response were Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Todd M. Hughes, Deputy Director.
Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, MAYER, LOURIE, RADER, SCHALL, BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, PROST, and MOORE, Circuit Judges, and WALKER, Chief District Judge.
Honorable Vaughn R. Walker, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation, was on the original panel, and participated only in decision on the petition for panel rehearing.

Opinion:
BRYSON, Circuit Judge, with whom MICHEL, Chief Judge, and LOURIE, RADER, PROST, and MOORE, Circuit Judges, join, concurs in the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc in a separate opinion. DYK, Circuit Judge, with whom NEWMAN, SCHALL, GAJARSA, and LINN, Circuit Judges, join, dissents from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc in a separate opinion.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
A petition for rehearing en banc was filed by the Petitioner, and a response thereto was invited by the court and filed by the Respondent. The petition for rehearing was referred to the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter the petition for rehearing en banc and response were referred to the circuit judges who are authorized to request a poll whether to rehear the appeal en banc. A poll was requested, taken, and failed. Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition for panel rehearing is denied.
(2) The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.
(3) The mandate of the court will issue on June 18, 2009.