# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · August 21, 2003 · 342 F.3d 1245

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415778

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jacqueline Panseta BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** August 21, 2003
- **Citations:** 342 F.3d 1245; 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 17295; 2003 WL 21983029
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hill
- **Judges:** Carnes, Hill, Kravitch
- **Cited by:** 104 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415778

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that a prior panel precedent binds subsequent panels 7 Case: 19-10233 Date Filed: 09/26/2019 Page: 8 of 10 unless or until it is overruled or undermined to the point of abrogation by this Court sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court
- explaining that a prior panel precedent binds subsequent panels unless or until it is overruled or 3 Case: 18-12573 Date Filed: 03/11/2019 Page: 4 of 4 undermined to the point of abrogation by this Court sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court
- explaining that a prior panel precedent binds subsequent panels unless or until it is overruled or undermined to the point of abrogation by 7 Case: 18-11151 Date Filed: 04/04/2019 Page: 8 of 9 this Court sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court
- holding that this Court lacked jurisdiction to review magistrate judge’s decision denying motion for counsel’s withdrawal where defendant failed to appeal decision to the district court
- holding that the prior panel precedent rule applied to Renfro, and reinstating a decision to deny jurisdiction after it was vacated by the Supreme Court

## Opinion text

HILL, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur in this exercise of futility with the following remarks.
The Solicitor General of the United States did not counsel the Supreme Court that certiorari be granted and that the conviction and sentence be affirmed. Nor did the Solicitor General counsel reversal.
The Solicitor General took a third approach.
Something may be wrong with the proceeding. Perhaps the Court will instruct this court to reconsider its long-standing rule, binding on this panel, that failure to object in the district court to a ruling made by a magistrate judge deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to review that ruling.
The Supreme Court has done so. It has granted certiorari, vacated our judgment, and remanded the case for this court to reconsider the rule that an objection to the ruling of the magistrate judge must be made in the district court in order for appellate jurisdiction to obtain.
The remand is to this court, not one of its panels. I take it that the Solicitor General and the Supreme Court acknowledge that one of our court’s panels cannot overturn a prior panel’s holding. Neither can it overturn a holding of a panel of the former Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals before its division and the creation of the Eleventh Circuit. 1
I trust that the full court will give the issue the reconsideration which the Supreme Court is entitled to expect of us. But, in senior status, I cannot move that it be done. Perhaps one of the parties or an active judge will make that motion.
. The first case decided by this court so held. Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir.1981)(en banc). That case has received wide circulation; our rule of stare deci-sis is not concealed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415778. Public record. Not legal advice.