Case Name: Anesh GUPTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard T. McGAHEY, Senior Special Agent, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Timothy Wargo, Supervisory Special Agent, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), John Kaufman, Special Agent, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Defendants-Appellees, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-11-07
Citations: 737 F.3d 694
Docket Number: No. 11-14240
Parties: Anesh GUPTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard T. McGAHEY, Senior Special Agent, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Timothy Wargo, Supervisory Special Agent, U.S. Immigra tion and Customs Enforcement (ICE), John Kaufman, Special Agent, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Defendants-Appellees, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., Defendants.
Judges: Before CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, DUBINA, BARKETT, HULL, MARCUS, WILSON, PRYOR, MARTIN, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 737
Pages: 694–699

Head Matter:
Anesh GUPTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard T. McGAHEY, Senior Special Agent, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Timothy Wargo, Supervisory Special Agent, U.S. Immigra tion and Customs Enforcement (ICE), John Kaufman, Special Agent, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Defendants-Appellees, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., Defendants.
No. 11-14240.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Nov. 7, 2013.
Jason Popp, Alston & Bird, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Roberta Josephina Bodnar, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, DUBINA, BARKETT, HULL, MARCUS, WILSON, PRYOR, MARTIN, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
As an active judge of this Court at the time the en banc poll was conducted, Judge Barkett participated in this case. See Fed. R.App. P. 35, 11th Cir. IOP 7. Because she retired from service on September 30, 2013, she did not participate in the consideration of this case after that date.

Opinion:
ORDER ON REHEARING EN BANC.
BY THE COURT:
A member of this Court in active service having requested a poll on whether this case should be reheard by the Court sitting en banc, and a majority of the judges in active service on this Court having voted against granting a rehearing en banc, IT IS ORDERED that the Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.