First, a dissent from the denial of hearing a case en banc in which the author's basically just telling everyone how they should interpret the panel's opinion. Or to use the words of Judge O'Scannlain, "I dissent for the narrow purpose of sending the criminal defense bar this message: do not cite this case for the proposition that Paul’s sentence was substantively unreasonable."
Second, a one-paragraph concurrence from the denial from the two members of the panel itself that . . . well, I'll leave you to interpret their message for yourself. They say: "We stand by what we said in the opinion, whether or not it was 'one of our court’s most elegant,' and leave to others whether it was 'a masterpiece of craftsmanship.' (O’Scannlain Dissenting Op. at 14041)."
Something to smile about on this lovely late September day.
