BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judge. Douglas Milczak is a longtime General Motors (“GM”) employee who works at one of its plants near Detroit, Michigan. In 2018, GM announced that it was retooling that plant to produce electric vehicles. From then on things seemed tenuous for Milczak, who was in his late fifties. While he remained employed, and still is, he claims that his managers harassed him because of his age, and let his subordinates do the same, to push him into early retirement. After several years of enduring this alleged degradation, he filed an action against GM claiming it violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. After discovery, GM moved for summary judgment, arguing the record did not support any of his claims. The district court granted the motion, and we affirm.

A majority of the Judges of this Court in regular active service has voted for rehearing en banc of this case. Sixth Circuit Rule 35(b) provides as follows:

The effect of the granting of a hearing en banc shall be to vacate the previous opinion and judgment of this court, to stay the mandate and to restore the case on the docket sheet as a pending appeal.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that the previous decision and judgment of this court are vacated, the mandate is stayed, and this case is restored to the docket as a pending appeal.

The Clerk will direct the parties to file supplemental briefs and will schedule this case for oral argument as soon as possible.

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Emmanuel Merritt pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms and was sentenced to 120 months in prison. But two twists underlie this seemingly straightforward case. First, before Merritt pleaded guilty, he spent several months evading authorities. So the district court faulted him for not accepting responsibility and denied him a two-point reduction in his total offense level, which Merritt challenges as an error. Second, the district court gave Merritt a three-point increase in his criminal history score because one of his past state offenses included a total prison sentence of 870 days. But Merritt believes that his sentence was for only 330 days, because of credits he received, and the district court was thus wrong in calculating his score. Both claims fail, however, so we AFFIRM.