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.

ORDER
The occurrence out of which this and its predecessor criminal and civil actions arose appear in detail in People v. Krum, 374 Mich. 356, 132 N.W.2d 69 (1965) and are summarized in the opinion of the District Court from which this appeal was perfected (Krum v. Sheppard, 255 F.Supp. 994 (1966)). Therefore suffice it to here only state that following an altercation with Michigan state police officers (the defendants-appellees), plaintiff-appellant was charged, tried and convicted of interfering with an officer in the performance of his duties. That conviction was sustained in People v. Krum, supra. Plaintiff-appellant thereafter brought action against these defendants in the Circuit Court for the County of Mackinac, Michigan, for damages for false arrest, illegal search and malicious prosecution. No appeal was taken from the order dismissing that action.
Subsequently the present action was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division. Although alleging the same occurrence alleged in the civil action in the state Circuit Court, the District Court action was bottomed upon appellant’s deprivation of civil rights by appellees in violation of 42, U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Appeal to this court followed dismissal by the District Court.
District Judge Noel P. Fox sustained a motion of the defendants to dismiss on the ground that the Michigan Statute of Limitations is a bar to this action. We are in accord with this conclusion, and it is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed for the reasons set forth in Judge Fox’s opinion (Krum v. Sheppard, supra).

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