the former panel, in light of fresh developments, would change its collective mind.” Id. We are dubious that this scenario can ever play out where, as here, a panel of a court finds its path blocked by an earlier decision of the full court. Cf. Ewing v. Williams, 596 F.2d 391, 397 (9th Cir.1979) (declaring that “an appellate panel simply cannot modify an en banc decision”). A contrary rule permitting a single panel in a multi-panel circuit to revisit determinations made by the court as a whole would invite chaos. For that reason, panels generally are precluded from following such a maverick course. E.g., United States v. Norton, 780 F.2d 21, 23 (8th Cir.1985); United States v. Poolaw, 588 F.2d 103, 105 (5th Cir.1979); cf. Biggins v. Hazen Paper Co., 111 F.3d 205, 208 (1st Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). In this case, all roads lead to Rome.
holding that only intervening law from the supreme court or this court sitting en banc can overrule a prior panel decision holding that in the absence of an intervening supreme court decision only the en banc court may overrule a decision by a threejudge panel recognizing that a later en banc court may overrule an earlier en banc opinion holding that one panel of this court is bound by the precedent of an earlier panel absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision of the supreme court holding that a panel may not reconsider issues decided earlier in the same case by the en banc court