In Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538 (1998), Thompson was convicted of rape and murder and was given the death penalty. The Governor of California held a hearing on whether to grant clemency to Thompson. After hearing arguments and reviewing the materials submitted on his behalf, the Governor agreed with the trial court judge that "it would be an absolute tragedy and travesty of justice to even seriously consider clemency in this case." The United States Supreme Court held that "courts of appeals have inherent power to recall their mandates, subject to review for an abuse of discretion, but in light of the profound interests in repose attaching to the mandate of a court of appeals, the power can be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances, and is one of last resort, to be held in reserve against grave, unforeseen contingencies." The Court of Appeals (panel) originally denied Thompson's motion to recall the mandate. Two days later, however, the full court voted to consider en banc whether to recall the earlier mandate "to consider whether the panel decision of our court would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice." Calderon v. Thompson, 120 F.3d 1042, 1043. The en banc majority asserted extraordinary circumstances justified its order recalling the mandate because, "but for procedural misunderstandings by some judges of this court, an en banc call would have been made and voted upon at the ordinary time." Thompson v. Calderon 120 F.3d 1045, 1048. It appears that the procedural misunderstandings involved an off-panel judge who requested an opportunity to make a belated call for a vote to rehear the case en banc. The judge stated that the panel's decision had been "circulated shortly before a law clerk transition" in the judge's chambers, and that "the old and new law clerks assigned to the case failed to communicate." Calderon, 523 U.S. 538.