Case Name: DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE; CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY; Craig Miller, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent, National Association of Home Builders; State of Arizona; Arizona Chamber of Commerce, Intervenors; Defenders of Wildlife; Center for Biological Diversity; Craig Miller, Petitioners, v. United States Environmental Protection Agency; Robert B. Flowers, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-08
Citations: 450 F.3d 394
Docket Number: Nos. 03-71439, 03-72894
Parties: DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE; CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY; Craig Miller, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent, National Association of Home Builders; State of Arizona; Arizona Chamber of Commerce, Intervenors. Defenders of Wildlife; Center for Biological Diversity; Craig Miller, Petitioners, v. United States Environmental Protection Agency; Robert B. Flowers, Respondents.
Judges: Before STEPHEN REINHARDT, DAVID R. THOMPSON, and MARSHA S. BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 450
Pages: 394–406

Head Matter:
DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE; CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY; Craig Miller, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent, National Association of Home Builders; State of Arizona; Arizona Chamber of Commerce, Intervenors. Defenders of Wildlife; Center for Biological Diversity; Craig Miller, Petitioners, v. United States Environmental Protection Agency; Robert B. Flowers, Respondents.
Nos. 03-71439, 03-72894.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 8, 2006.
Eric R. Glitzenstein, Esq., Meyer & Glit-zenstein, Washington, DC, Vera S. Korny-lak, Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, Tucson, AZ, for Petitioners.
David C. Shilton, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division, Christie Whitman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Robert Gulley, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Appellate Staff, Washington, DC, Kevin V. Ryan, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Jose, CA, for Respondent.
Norman D. James, Esq., Fennemore & Craig, PC, James T. Skardon, Esq., Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, Sonia D. Overholser, Esq., Russell S. Frye, Esq., Collier Shannon Scott, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Intervenors.
Before STEPHEN REINHARDT, DAVID R. THOMPSON, and MARSHA S. BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
The panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The request for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc is DENIED. Judge Kozinski's and Judge Kleinfeld's dissents from denial of en banc rehearing, and Judge Berzon's concurrence in denial of en banc rehearing, are filed concurrently herewith.