to address in the first instance. V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the district court’s order denying Pioneer’s request for leave to amend its complaint to assert a claim under subsection (f)(3)(B) and we remand this case to the district court to address Pioneer’s request in accordance with this opinion. VACATED and REMANDED. 1 . Since the district court’s order, the Supreme Court has followed the same reasoning in Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Aviall Servs., Inc., 543 U.S. 157, 125 S.Ct. 577, 160 L.Ed.2d 548 (2004). 2 . In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir.l981)(en banc), this court adopted as binding precedent all decisions issued by the Fifth Circuit before the close of business on September 30, 1981. 3 . See Cooper Indus., Inc., 125 S.Ct. at 584
holding that two robberies of different people at the same time are two separate offenses calling for two judgments and two sentences when the defendants were convicted of taking a grandfathers wallet pistol and car and taking a grandsons fishing equipment holding that the evidence supported two separate convictions and punishments for two attempted robberies of two different victims who suffered separate and distinct harms holding that subsections f1 and f3 provide two express avenues for contribution holding that in context of motion for reconsideration or to reopen congress envisioned two separate timely petitions for review of two separate final orders holding that trustees did not breach their fiduciary duty by deciding to set independent contribution rates for each local union