PER CURIAM. Dr. Roger Anderson was convicted of one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, eight counts of unlawful distribution of controlled substances, and one count of healthcare fraud after an eight-day jury trial. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, the district court’s refusal to give a good faith jury instruction, and the admission of the government’s expert’s testimony. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

COLE, Circuit Judge. Nigel Medlin pleaded guilty to one count of kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1). The district court imposed a sentence of 220 months’ imprisonment. Medlin appeals the sentence, arguing it is procedurally unreasonable for two reasons. First, he argues that the court improperly applied a four-level enhancement to his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(b)(2)(A), which applies “[i]f the victim sustained permanent or life-threatening bodily injury[.]” Second, he claims that there is an unreasonable disparity between his sentence and the sentences of his co-defendants. Because the district court properly applied the sentencing guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, we affirm.

MATHIS, Circuit Judge. Curtis Keller, currently serving a 210-year sentence after a jury convicted him of numerous violent felonies, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Keller seeks relief on a double-jeopardy claim. But because Keller, by his own concession, procedurally defaulted his double-jeopardy claim by failing to raise it before the state trial court in a motion for new trial, we affirm the denial of his petition.

The court received a petition for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc. The petition did not seek review of the issues that the panel’s opinion decided. Rather, it sought vacatur of the opinion and of the district court’s preliminary injunctions on the ground that events postdating the opinion have now mooted the appeal and the preliminary injunctions. The original panel has reviewed the petition for panel rehearing and has concluded that the district court should review this mootness question in the first instance. It has also concluded that, even if the preliminary injunctions were now moot, that fact would not provide a basis for the “extraordinary remedy of vacatur” of the panel’s opinion. U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 26 (1994). The petition then was circulated to the full court. Less than a majority of the judges voted in favor of rehearing en banc.

Therefore, the petition is denied.