2. Effect of Mandate on Precedential Value of Opinion. Under the law of this circuit, published opinions are binding precedent. The issuance or non-issuance of the mandate does not affect this result. See Martin v. Singletary, 965 F.2d 944, 945 n.1 (11th Cir. 1992). For information concerning the precedential value of opinions of the former Fifth Circuit, see Bonner v. City of Prichard, Alabama, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) and Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982).
3. Processing of Opinions. After the draft opinion has been prepared, the opinion writing judge circulates the proposed opinion to each of the other two judges on the panel. Review of another judge’s proposed opinion is given high priority by the other members of the panel. When the writing judge has received concurrences from the other judges or in the case of dissent, or special concurrences, sufficient concurrence(s) to constitute a majority, the writing judge then sends the opinion to the clerk , along with the concurrences, dissent, or special concurrence, as the case may be.
4. Circulation of Opinions to Non-Panel Members. Copies of proposed opinions are not normally circulated to non-panel members. In special cases, however, a panel or member thereof may circulate a proposed opinion to other members of the court.
5. Publication of Opinions. The policy of the court is: The unlimited proliferation of published opinions is undesirable because it tends to impair the development of the cohesive body of law. To meet this serious problem it is declared to be the basic policy of this court to exercise imaginative and innovative resourcefulness in fashioning new methods to increase judicial efficiency and reduce the volume of published opinions. Judges of this court will exercise appropriate discipline to reduce the length of opinions by the use of those techniques which result in brevity without sacrifice of quality.
6. Unpublished Opinions. A majority of the panel determine whether an opinion should be published. Opinions that the panel believes to have no precedential value are not published. Although unpublished opinions may be cited as persuasive authority, they are not considered binding precedent. The court will not give the unpublished opinion of another circuit more weight than the decision is to be given in that circuit under its own rules. Parties may request publication of an unpublished opinion by filing a motion to that effect in compliance with FRAP 27 and the corresponding circuit rules.
7. Citation to Unpublished Opinions by the Court. The court generally does not cite to its “unpublished” opinions because they are not binding precedent. The court may cite to them where they are specifically relevant to determine whether the predicates for res judicata, collateral estoppel, or double jeopardy exist in the case, to ascertain the law of the case, or to establish the procedural history or facts of the case.
8. Release of Opinions. Prior to issuance of an opinion, information concerning the date a decision by the court may be expected is not available to counsel.
Opinions are generally released from the clerk’s office in Atlanta. Upon release of an opinion, a copy is mailed to counsel and made available to the press and public at the clerk’s office and at the circuit libraries. On request, the clerk will also notify counsel by telephone. Opinions are available on the Internet at www.ca11.uscourts.gov.
Opinions are subject to typographical and printing errors. Cooperation of the bar in calling apparent errors to the attention of the clerk’s office is solicited.
9. Citation to Internet Materials in an Opinion. When an opinion of the court includes a citation to materials available on a website, a hyperlink will be created using an online link capturing program approved by the court to archive and preserve the cited materials.
