Case Name: Alejandro Garcia DE LA PAZ, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jason COY, United States Customs and Border Protection Officer; Mario Vega, United States Customs and Border Protection Officer, Defendants-Appellants; Daniel Frias, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Arturo Torrez, United States Customs and Border Protection Officer, formerly known as John Doe, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-14
Citations: 804 F.3d 1200
Docket Number: Nos. 13-50768, 14-10018
Parties: Alejandro Garcia DE LA PAZ, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jason COY, United States Customs and Border Protection Officer; Mario Vega, United States Customs and Border Protection Officer, Defendants-Appellants. Daniel Frias, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Arturo Torrez, United States Customs and Border Protection Officer, formerly known as John Doe, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges, and GODBEY, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 804
Pages: 1200–1202

Head Matter:
Alejandro Garcia DE LA PAZ, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jason COY, United States Customs and Border Protection Officer; Mario Vega, United States Customs and Border Protection Officer, Defendants-Appellants. Daniel Frias, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Arturo Torrez, United States Customs and Border Protection Officer, formerly known as John Doe, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 13-50768, 14-10018.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 14, 2015.
David Anton Armendariz, Esq. (argued), De Mott McChesney Curtright & Armen-dariz, L.L.P., San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Edward Himmelfarb (argued), U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Joseph Cuauhtemoc Rodriguez, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendants-Appellants.
Mary A. Kenney, Washington, DC, Trina Ann Realmuto, Boston, MA, for Amici Curiae.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Before JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges, and GODBEY, District Judge.
United States District Judge of the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Treating the petition for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing, the petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. The court having been polled at the request of one of its members, and a majority of the judges who are in regular active service and not disqualified not having voted in favor (Fed. R.App. P. 35 and 5th CiR. R. 35), the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED.
In the en banc poll, 4 judges voted in favor of rehearing (Judges Dennis, Prado, Graves, and Costa), and 11 judges voted against rehearing (Chief Judge Stewart and Judges Jolly, Davis, Jones, Smith, Clement, Owen, Elrod, Southwick, Haynes, and Higginson).