*1 680 KENNEDY, Circuit KEITH and Before: own written were Defendant’s which

least of JORDAN,* Judge. District Judges; This and intent. admitting fraudulent statements merit. without is contention ORDER

4. for gov- petition the a having that received contends The court Finally, Defendant beyond banc, having a reasonable petition prove rehearing to and the failed en ernment actually the letter mailed only original panel the Beckner not to doubt that circulated been Because Count 6. judges of the basis active that formed also all other but to members conviction setting aside Defendant’s court, majority we are than a of the and of this less issue is grounds, this other 6 on suggestion, for Count having the the judges favored moot, However, not if it were even moot. to rehearing referred has been petition for fo- Defendant meritless. is the contention hearing panel. original the one of the witnesses fact that on the cuses peti- the further reviewed panel has The the let- he received not certain whether was that rehearing and concludes the tion for disre- Defendant or via mail. ter via fax fully con- petition in were raised the issues testimony, in however, own gards, Beckner’s and original submission de- upon the sidered that the letter doubt expresses no which he Accordingly, petition the of the case. cision was mailed.

is denied. III. Conclusion OF EN FROM DENIAL BANC. DISSENT reasons, set aside we foregoing

For the 1, 3, 6, MARTIN, Jr., on Counts Judge. convictions Defendant’s Circuit F. BOYCE ruling on court’s 8, the district reverse and deny- order from the respectfully I dissent 8, jury’s on the verdict affirm Counts 7 and in this case be- ing en bane consideration 7, in 2, 4, 5, order and and remand Counts majority’s opinion, the I believe that cause Entry of its court revise for district to the rep- light, in the reasonable even taken most accordingly. Defendant’s sen- Judgment rights guar- of the a further erosion resents unchanged. tence remains Compare by Unit- anteed our Constitution. (6th 572, 590 Taylor, 956 F.2d

ed States v. banc) Cir.1992) (en (Martin, J., dissenting). mirror, appears to with amaz- this case While in opinion ing clarity, the Ninth Circuit’s America, of UNITED STATES Valles-Valencia, F.2d v. 811 States United Plaintiff-Appellee, (9th Cir.), grounds, on other 1232 amended (9th Cir.1987), v. majori- I feel the F.2d 381 823 gone beyond even what was ty opinion has Defendant-Appellant. JOHNSON, Emil A. contemplated by sister circuit. our No. 92-4009. embodies the Fourth The Amendment Appeals, of Court States United every person “to retreat into his own right of Sixth Circuit. from there be free unreasonable home and Silverman v. United government intrusion.” 3, 1994. Feb. 679, 683, 505, 511, States, 5 365 81 S.Ct. U.S. (1961). keeping this In with 734 L.Ed.2d sanctity of the of long-standing protection home, and searches seizures the warrantless are, probable dwellings absent private in Jordan, Judge designation. States District *Hon. Leon United Tennessee, sitting by Eastern of for the District

681 circumstances, exigent considered cause and Payton v. New

presumptively unreasonable. York, 573, 1371, 583-90, 100 445 U.S. S.Ct. (1980). Moreover,

1378-82, L.Ed.2d 639 63 Supreme repeatedly has cautioned the Court emergency circumstances are “few that true carefully in and delineated.” Welsh number Wisconsin, 740, 749, v. 466 104 S.Ct. U.S. (1984). 2091, 2097, Despite 732 80 L.Ed.2d clarity principles, the of these bedrock the majority here sanctions an unwarranted ex- exigent

pansion excep- of the circumstances police tion endorses unreasonable intru- and private sions into a residence. This Court signal could not sent more that have a clear Fourth least Amendment freedoms will—at public in on this Circuit —bow to the war crime. only hope

I can that the United States Supreme Court will review this case and tragic

correct this error. America, UNITED STATES of Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. GRAY, Defendant-Appellant. Mabel Lee

No. 93-1141. Appeals, United States Court of Sixth Circuit. 18, Argued Nov. 1993. 8, Decided Feb. 1994. (ar- Brunson, Atty. A. Asst.

James U.S. briefed), gued Atty., and Office of the U.S. MI, Bay City, plaintiff-appellee. for briefed), Henry (argued and J. Sefcovie MI, Bay City, defendant-appellant. for