The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted a petition for en banc rehearing Wednesday in *United States v. Moon Seals*, setting the stage for a rare full court review of the federal criminal case. The court vacated its Oct. 17, 2025 judgment and stayed the issuance of the mandate, reopening the matter for consideration by all active judges.
Defendant Malachi Mathias Moon Seals had filed a petition seeking en banc rehearing of his appeal, which originated from a 2022 federal criminal prosecution in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The government filed a response opposing the petition, while the defendant's counsel sought permission to file a reply brief supporting the en banc request.
The Tenth Circuit granted the defendant's unopposed motion for leave to file a reply brief in support of the petition. All petition materials, including the government's response and the defendant's reply, were circulated to the court's active judges for consideration.
After reviewing the materials, the court called a poll of all active judges. A majority voted to rehear the matter en banc, triggering the court's decision to grant the petition and reopen the case for full court review.
En banc review represents a significant procedural step in federal appellate litigation. Unlike typical three-judge panel decisions, en banc proceedings involve all active judges of the circuit court. The Tenth Circuit has 12 active judges who will participate in rehearing the case, though Judge Michael R. Murphy, who served on the original three-judge panel, elected not to participate in the en banc proceedings.
The court's order, filed Jan. 22, 2026, was signed by Chief Judge Holmes and all participating circuit judges, including Hartz, Tymkovich, Matheson, Bacharach, Phillips, McHugh, Moritz, Eid, Carson, Rossman, and Federico.
Federal courts of appeals rarely grant en banc review, making the Tenth Circuit's decision particularly noteworthy. En banc rehearing typically occurs when a case involves questions of exceptional importance or when the panel decision conflicts with prior circuit precedent. The specific legal issues that prompted the majority of judges to vote for en banc review were not detailed in the court's order.
The case traces back to criminal charges filed in 2022 in the District of Colorado under case number 1:22-CR-00245-CNS-1. The district court proceedings resulted in Moon Seals' conviction, leading to his appeal to the Tenth Circuit under appellate case number 24-1028.
The original three-judge panel issued its decision in October 2025, but that judgment has now been vacated pending the en banc rehearing. The vacation of the panel's judgment means the court's previous ruling no longer has precedential effect while the full court reconsiders the case.
With the mandate stayed, any finality from the original panel decision is suspended until the en banc court reaches its conclusion. This procedural step ensures that the case remains open for full consideration by all participating judges rather than proceeding to any potential Supreme Court review or enforcement actions.
The en banc proceedings will allow both parties to present their arguments to the full court rather than the limited three-judge panel. This expanded review often results in more thorough consideration of complex legal questions and can lead to decisions that carry greater precedential weight within the circuit.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(c) governs en banc proceedings, while Tenth Circuit Rule 40.2(E) provides additional local procedural requirements. These rules establish the framework for how en banc petitions are considered and processed within the circuit.
The timing of the en banc grant suggests the court views the legal questions presented as sufficiently important to warrant full court consideration. Criminal cases that receive en banc review often involve constitutional questions, sentencing guidelines, or other issues with broad implications for federal criminal law.
The case will now proceed through the en banc briefing schedule, allowing both the government and defense to present comprehensive arguments to all participating judges. The full court will then schedule oral arguments before issuing a new decision that will replace the vacated panel judgment.
For Moon Seals, the en banc grant represents an opportunity to present his case to the full court after the three-judge panel ruled against him. The government will defend the district court's proceedings and argue against reversal of the conviction.
The Tenth Circuit's jurisdiction covers Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming, meaning the eventual en banc decision will establish binding precedent throughout the region. The case's resolution could impact how similar criminal cases are handled across the circuit's six-state area.