Case Name: In re RADMAX, LIMITED, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-24
Citations: 736 F.3d 1012
Docket Number: No. 13-40462
Parties: In re RADMAX, LIMITED, Petitioner.
Judges: Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 736
Pages: 1012–1013

Head Matter:
In re RADMAX, LIMITED, Petitioner.
No. 13-40462.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 24, 2013.
Sara M. Berkeley, Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, L.L.P., Austin, TX, Michael Alan Yanof, Esq., Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
William Sam Hommel, Jr., Tyler, TX, for Plaintiff-Respondent.
Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (Opinion June 18, 2013, 720 F.3d 285)
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 re quest 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, 7 judges voted in favor of rehearing (Chief Judge Stewart and Judges King, Davis, Dennis, Elrod, Graves, and Higginson), and 8 judges voted against rehearing (Judges Jolly, Jones, Smith, Clement, Prado, Owen, Southwick, and Haynes).