[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