United States v. Gabourel, 9 F.Supp.2d 1246 (D.Colo. 1998); United States v. Dunlap, 17 F.Supp.2d 1183 (D.Colo.1998); United States v. Pungitore, 15 F.Snpp.2d 705 (E.D.Pa.1998); United States v. Eisenhardt, 10 F.Supp.2d 521 (D.Md.1998) (“[T]he undersigned ... concluded that [the vacated Singleton decision] was amazingly unsound, not to mention nonsensical____ The chances of ... the Supreme Court reaching the same conclusion as the Singleton panel are, in this Court’s judgment, about the same as discovering the entire roster of the Baltimore Orioles consists of cleverly disguised leprechauns.”); United States v. Guillaume, 13 F.Supp.2d 1331 (S.D.Fla.1998); United States v. Reid, 19 F.Supp.2d 534, 1998 WL 481459 (E.D.Va.1998); United States v. Arana, 18 F.Supp.2d 715 (E.D.Mich.1998) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Duncan, No. 97-CR-217, 1998
holding the result of the singleton panel to be an absurdity holding that the final determination of witness credibility and the weight to be accorded evidence is reserved to the appellate panel and it is not the task of an appellate court to weigh the evidence as found by the appellate panel 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 one panel of this court is not bound by dicta in a previously published panel opinion holding stare decisis applies when one court of appeals panel is faced with previous decision of different panel