UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT


KIDD, PATRICIA

v.

DC


98-7075b

D.C. Cir. 2000


*	*	*


O R D E R


The petition for rehearing en banc of amicus curiae and  the response
thereto have been circulated to the full court.  The taking of a vote
was requested. Thereafter, a majority  of the judges of the court in
regular active service did not 


vote in favor of the petition. Upon consideration of the  foregoing, it
is


ORDERED that the petition be denied.


Per Curiam


FOR THE COURT:


Mark J. Langer, Clerk


BY:


Robert A. Bonner


Deputy Clerk


Chief Judge Edwards and Circuit Judges Sentelle, Tatel  and Garland
would grant the petition.


A statement of Circuit Judge Tatel, dissenting from the  denial of
rehearing en banc, joined by Chief Judge Edwards  and Circuit Judges
Sentelle and Garland, is attached.


Circuit Judge Rogers did not participate in this matter.


Tatel, Circuit Judge, with whom Edwards, Chief Judge,  and Sentelle and
Garland, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting  from the denial of
rehearing en banc: In my view, this case  raises a "question of
exceptional importance" because the  panel decision will produce
precisely the kind of uncertainty  and potential loss of appeal rights
that Rule 58 was intended  to prevent. I trust, however, that our
district court col- leagues will recognize that there is no
disagreement on the  panel that the simplest solution is for them to
instruct the  Clerk of Court to issue judgments adhering to Model
Forms  31 and 32. By doing so, they will provide the certainty Rule 
58 demands, prevent accidental loss of appeal rights, and  ensure that
this court will never again have to address this  issue. See Kidd v.
District of Columbia, 206 F.3d 35, 41  (D.C. Cir. 2000); id. at 44