"Courts are granted 'an exceptional degree of flexibility' in determining when to grant probation, and are left an equal flexibility in determining when to revoke[.]"
How later courts described this case
- "Courts are granted 'an exceptional degree of flexibility' in determining when to grant probation, and are left an equal flexibility in determining when to revoke[.]"
- defendant on bail “was under the custody of the court, not the Attorney General”
- parole could be revoked before it began based on offender violation of laws
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
The petition for rehearing filed by Appellant, James Camarata in the above-entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied. Judge Mansmann would have granted rehearing. Judge Garth as a Senior Circuit Judge is remitted to voting only for panel rehearing. See 28 U.S.C. § 46 ; Internal Operating Procedures, Third Circuit, Chapter 9B.3. Accordingly, Judge Garth would grant the petition for panel rehearing for the reasons set forth in his panel dissents in United States v. Davis, 828 F.2d 968 (3d Cir.1987) and United States v. Camarata, 828 F.2d 974 (3d Cir.1987).