Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Robert L. Jones v. J. Wayne Garner, Chairman, State Board of Pardons and Paroles, Defendants

Robert L. Jones v. J. Wayne Garner, Chairman, State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, Defendants, 211 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2000)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2000-05-10
Topic
bankruptcy

PER CURIAM: In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Garner v. Jones, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 1362, 146 L.Ed.2d 236 (2000), we remand the case for further proceedings. In its decision the Supreme Court noted that: The Court of Appeals’ analysis failed to reveal whether the amendment to Rule 475-3- 05(2), in its operation, created a significant risk of increased punishment for respondent. Respondent claims he has not been permitted sufficient discovery to make this showing. The matter of adequate discovery is one for the Court of Appeals or, as need be, for the District Court in the first instance- The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Robert L. Jones v. J. Wayne Garner, Chairman, State Board of Pardons and Paroles, Defendants. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
1 opinion
JONES v. GARNER,211 F.3d 1225(11th Cir. 2000)
ROBERT L. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. WAYNE GARNER, Chairman, State
Board of Pardons and Paroles, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 97-9009
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
DECIDED May 10, 2000
Elizabeth T. Kertscher, Powell, Goldstein, Frazer Murphy, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Neal Bradley Childers, Georgia Dept. of Law, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (No. 1:95-cv-3012-CAM); Charles A. Moye, Jr., Judge.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES D.C. Docket No. 1:95-cv-3012-CAM.
Before BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and HANCOCKfn*, Senior District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
[1] In light of the Supreme Court's decision inGarner v. Jones,120 S.Ct. 1362(March 28, 2000), we remand the case for further proceedings. In its decision the Supreme Court noted that:
The Court of Appeals' analysis failed to reveal whether the amendment to Rule 475-3-.05(2), in its operation, created a significant risk of increased punishment for respondent. Respondent claims he has not been permitted sufficient discovery to make this showing. The matter of adequate discovery is one for the Court of Appeals or, as need be, for the District Court in the first instance. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.


[2]Id.at 1371. We thus remand the case to the district court to determine, after permitting sufficient discovery, whether the amendment to Ga. Rules Regs., Rule 475-3-.05(2) (1985) in its operation created a significant risk of increased punishment for Robert L. Jones.

[3] SO ORDERED.
  1. Honorable James H. Hancock, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, sitting by designation. ↩