Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

U.S. PAROLE COM'N v. NOBLE

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.


April 23, 1998

UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, APPELLANT,
V.
MATTHEW NOBLE, APPELLEE.

On Certification from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On Rehearing En Banc.

Before Wagner, Chief Judge, Terry, Steadman, Schwelb, Farrell, King, Ruiz, and Reid, Associate Judges, and Pryor, Senior Judge.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam:

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit certified the following question to this court, pursuant to D.C.Code § 11-723 (1995):

Under District of Columbia law, . . . did the United States Parole Commission properly interpret sections 24-206(a) and 24-431(a) of the District of Columbia Code in deciding that, after revocation of a person's parole, time that the person spent on parole before revocation cannot be credited against his sentence?

Noble v. United States Parole Comm'n, 317 U.S.App. D.C. 304, 305, 82 F.3d 1108, 1109 (1996). In an opinion released April 17, 1997, a majority of the panel hearing the case answered that question in the affirmative. United States Parole Comm'n v. Noble, 693 A.2d 1084 (D.C. 1997). On November 19, 1997, we granted appellee's petition for rehearing en banc and vacated the April 17 opinion.

After rehearing en banc, a majority of the full court has voted to answer the certified question in the affirmative, and to adopt the [711 A2d Page 86]

original majority opinion of April 17, 1997. It is, therefore,

ORDERED that the majority opinion of April 17, 1997 is hereby adopted by a majority of the full court. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the majority opinion of that date is reinstated as the opinion of the en banc court. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the certified question is answered in the affirmative.

The clerk shall certify this answer to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

So ordered.

For the reasons stated in my separate opinion in United States Parole Comm'n v. Noble, 693 A.2d 1084, 1106-17 (D.C. 1997) (Noble I), I respectfully dissent.

SCHWELB, Associate Judge, dissenting:

19980423

© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.