Burken, 930 F.2d 1202, 1205 (7th Cir.1991). Nevertheless, when the merits panel is no better equipped to make a decision than the motions panel— particularly regarding questions of appellate jurisdiction — “honoring the original jurisdictional decision is the more prudent course.” Moss v. Healthcare Compare Corp., 75 F.3d 276, 280 (7th Cir.1996). Both parties were given the opportunity to fully brief the jurisdictional issue before the motions panel, and under the circumstances here, we are no better situated than the motions panel to decide the issue of appellate jurisdiction. In any event, the decision of the motions panel was manifestly correct; the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Healy squarely controls the question. 376 U.S. 75, 78, 84 5.Ct. 553, 11 L.Ed.2d 527 (1964) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Ibarra, 502 U.S. 1,
recognizing preclusive effect of judgments notwithstanding pending appeal or collateral attack holding that criminal judgments are nonfxnal for purposes of appeal so long as timely rehearing petitions are pending holding that that choices as to selection and arrangement are entitled to copyright protection only so long as they are made independently holding trial court has jurisdiction to reconsider new trial order as long as case is pending holding agreed judgments are construed in same manner as contract