Task: songer_method

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. Your task is to determine the nature of the proceeding in the court of appeals for the case, that is, the legal history of the case, indicating whether there had been prior appellate court proceeding on the same case prior to the decision currently coded. Assume that the case had been decided by the panel for the first time if there was no indication to the contrary in the opinion. The opinion usually, but not always, explicitly indicates when a decision was made "en banc" (though the spelling of "en banc" varies). However, if more than 3 judges were listed as participating in the decision, code the decision as enbanc even if there was no explicit description of the proceeding as en banc.

PER CURIAM.
Defendants-appellants in these cases were indicted, along with three others, and charged with conspiracy to possess and distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1976). Each was found guilty and sentenced; Sessum to five years and a three-year special parole term, and Markowitz to a Youth Corrections Act indeterminate sentence. The evidence presented at trial pertaining to a major conspiracy to distribute marijuana was much more than ample to support the jury verdict.
Appellants contend, however, that they were improperly denied motions for severance and that certain evidence admitted against them was improperly admitted. A review of the facts in this case shows that the District Judge committed no error in denying severance. All of these defendants were shown to be closely related in one criminal conspiracy. As to the evidentiary issues, we find no error in the admission of expert witness testimony pertaining to the identification of marijuana. The three witnesses who testified were amply qualified to make the chemical analysis by which they identified the substances seized as marijuana.
The last appellate issue pertains to the fact that the government was allowed to present both a video and an audio tape of the central conspirator, one Frank Cianciola, without calling Cianciola as a witness. The appellants conceded, as they had to, that the tapes were properly identified by law enforcement witnesses who testified at trial and were available for cross-examination. The government also made Cianciola available if the defense had desired to call him.
The judgments of conviction are affirmed.

Question: What is the nature of the proceeding in the court of appeals for this case?
A. decided by panel for first time (no indication of re-hearing or remand)
B. decided by panel after re-hearing (second time this case has been heard by this same panel)
C. decided by panel after remand from Supreme Court
D. decided by court en banc, after single panel decision
E. decided by court en banc, after multiple panel decisions
F. decided by court en banc, no prior panel decisions
G. decided by panel after remand to lower court
H. other
I. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: A