[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 10 2000
____________________
THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
No. 97-9009
____________________
D. C. Docket No. 1:95-cv-3012-CAM
ROBERT L. JONES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
J. WAYNE GARNER, Chairman,
State Board of Pardons and Paroles, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_____________________
(May 10, 2000)
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and HANCOCK*, Senior District
Judge.
PER CURIAM:
______________
*Honorable James H. Hancock, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama,
sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Garner 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.
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.
SO ORDERED.
2