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.
This is an appeal from an order denying petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. After conviction upon two counts of Dyer Act violation petitioner was sentenced to consecutive terms of five and three years. With 1056 days yet unserved upon an aggregate eight-year senténce, petitioner was released upon mandatory release. After a brief period of liberty, petitioner violated the terms of his release and was returned to restraint and transferred to the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas. His good-time allowance was revoked in its entirety.
Although conceding that allowance for good time should be computed upon the aggregate of consecutive sentences, 18 U.S.C.A. § 4161, petitioner asserts that the burden of forfeited good time, 18 U.S.C.A. § 4165, cannot be similarly imposed and that where, as here, one of several consecutive sentences has been completely served in time before forfeiture the sentence can no longer be considered in the aggregate for such' purpose. We find no merit to the contention and hold that the consecutive sentences should be aggregated both for computation of good time and for its forfeiture. Grant v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 166 F.2d 673; Gibson v. Looney, 10 Cir., 258 F.2d 879; United States ex rel. Klein v. Kenton, 2 Cir., 327 F.2d 229.
The appeal being otherwise without merit, the judgment is 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