We said with respect to Stephans that his participation in the conspiracy was established by overwhelming evidence independent of the Perez-Herrera statements. We recited that independent evidence. To erase any doubt of what we meant by our holding, admissibility of the Perez-Herrera statements against Stephans was harmless error beyond reasonable doubt under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).

The petitions for rehearing of Stephans, Comesana, Natale and Vadino are DENIED, 680 F.2d 1329, and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Eleventh Circuit Rule 26), the suggestions for Rehearing En Banc of Stephans, Comesana, Natale and Vadino are DENIED.