Original Opinion of October 24, 1990,
Rogers, Chief Judge; Ferren, Belson, Terry, Steadman, Schwelb, Farrell, and Wagner, Associate Judges.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam
On reconsideration of the petition of James Durham, et al., for rehearing or rehearing en banc, the opposition and responses thereto, the motion for leave to make corrections to petition, the motion for leave to file reply to opposition and responses, the lodged reply, the motion for leave to file supplement to reply, and the lodged supplement to reply, it is
ORDERED by the merits division* that the petition for rehearing is denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motions for leave are granted and the Clerk is directed to make corrections to petition and to file the lodged reply and supplement to reply; and it appearing that the majority of the Judges of this court has voted to grant the petition for rehearing en banc, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for rehearing en banc is granted and that the opinion and judgment of October 24, 1990, are hereby vacated. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned appeals are hereby scheduled for en banc argument on Wednesday, May 8, 1991, at 9:30 a.m. Counsel are hereby directed to provide ten copies of the briefs heretofore filed to the Clerk on or before April 11, 1991.