
    Alan HOROWITCH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DIAMOND AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-15856.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Nov. 12, 2008.
    Hala A. Sandridge, Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A., Tampa, FL, for Defendants Appellant.
    William V. Custer, IV, Jennifer B. Dempsey, Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Atlanta, GA, Marc P. Ossinsky, Ossinsky & Cathcart, PA, Winter Park, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and COHILL, District Judge.
    
      
       Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the district court certified for interlocutory appeal the following as a controlling issue of law: “Whether Florida law would enforce a contractual provision that limits a buyer’s remedy to a return of his deposit upon the seller’s breach.” After full discussion at oral argument, and after careful consideration, we conclude that the administrative panel improvidently granted leave to pursue this interlocutory appeal.

In the Eleventh Circuit an administrative panel makes the initial decision to permit an interlocutory appeal under § 1292(b). However, the administrative panel’s ruling is subject to revocation by the merits panel designated to decide the case. McFarlin v. Conseco Servs., 381 F.3d 1251, 1253 (11th Cir.2004). Accordingly, the previous order of the administrative panel granting permission to appeal this case is VACATED, and the petition for permission to appeal is DENIED, and this appeal is DISMISSED without prejudice and REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings.  