[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ____________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT APRIL 1, 2003 THOMAS K. KAHN No. 02-12054 CLERK ____________________________ D. C. Docket No. 97-01935-CV-UUB

AURELIO O. GONZALEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, versus

SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, James Crosby, Secretary, Respondent-Appellee.

______________________________

No. 02-12483 ______________________________ D. C. Docket Nos. 96-08752-CV-WJZ and 90-08108 CR-WJZ

EMIL LAZO,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee. ---------------------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ---------------------------------

_____________________________

No. 02-14224 _____________________________ D. C. Docket No. 99-00023-CV

STEPHEN A. MOBLEY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

FREDERICK HEAD, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center,

Respondent-Appellee.

---------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ---------------------------------- (April 1, 2003)

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, ANDERSON, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES, BARKETT, HULL, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

B Y T H E C O U R T:

The Court has determined to hear the following cases en banc: Mobley v.

2 Head, No. 02-14224, Lazo v. U.S., No. 02-12483, and Gonzalez v. Sec’y for the

Dept. of Corrections, No. 02-12054.

The cases will be orally argued before the Court sitting en banc on June 17,

2003, in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Court sua sponte VACATES the following orders: the December 16,

2002, Order issued in Lazo v. U.S., No. 02-12483, as well as the January 10, 2003

and the August 15, 2002, Orders issued in Gonzalez v. Sec’y for the Dept. of

Corrections, No. 02-12054.

Nos. 02-12483 and 02-12054 are hereby REINSTATED.

Counsel for Appellants Lazo and Gonzalez will be appointed by separate

Order.

In light of the above, Appellant Gonzalez’ “Motion to Reconsider, Vacate

or Modify” is DENIED AS MOOT.

3