Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William UNDERWOOD, Paul Messino, Christopher B. Messino, Christopher Richard Messino, and Clement Messino, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1997-11-21
Citations: 130 F.3d 1225
Docket Number: Nos. 95-2155, 95-2925, 95-2926, 95-3052 and 95-3124
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William UNDERWOOD, Paul Messino, Christopher B. Messino, Christopher Richard Messino, and Clement Messino, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before CUDAHY, ESCHBACH, and FLAUM, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 130
Pages: 1225–1231

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William UNDERWOOD, Paul Messino, Christopher B. Messino, Christopher Richard Messino, and Clement Messino, Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 95-2155, 95-2925, 95-2926, 95-3052 and 95-3124.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Nov. 21, 1997.
Barry Rand Elden, Chief of Appeals, Matthew M. Schneider, Office of the United States Attorney, Criminal Appellate Division, Daniel S. Goodman (argued), U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for United States in No. 95-2155.
Barry Rand Elden, Chief of Appeals, Office of the United States Attorney, Criminal Appellate Division, Daniel S. Goodman (argued), U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for United States.
Donna Hickstein-Foley, Chicago, IL, for William Underwood.
Joseph R. Lopez (argued), Chicago, IL, for Paul Messino.
Gerardo S. Guiterrez (argued), Chicago, IL, for Christopher B. Messino.
Marc W. Martin (argued), Chicago, IL, for Christopher Richard Messino.
E.E. Edwards, III, Edwards & Simmons, Nashville, TN, Douglas P. Roller (argued), Roller & Associates, Chicago, IL, for Clement A. Messino.
Before CUDAHY, ESCHBACH, and FLAUM, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
On consideration of the petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc filed in the above-entitled cause by plaintiff-appellee, a vote of the active members of the Court was requested, and a majority of the active members of the Court have voted to deny a rehearing en banc. All of the judges on the original panel have voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Accordingly,
It Is Ordered that the aforesaid petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc be, and the same is hereby, Denied.