On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, omd wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Aaron Goldfein > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Note that because appeal a was judged AFFIRM, the sentence of TIME OUT > > has already been reassigned. Thus, judging this case AFFIRM would be > > violating my R101 right to not be punished more than once for a single > > action as I would receive two TIME OUT sentences from the same case. > > Grat: I'm confused. Right now the sentence of TIME OUT is not in > effect because the question on sentencing is inapplicable (R1504). > Judging this AFFIRM would cause the sentence to be in effect (R1504), > but it wouldn't create a second simultaneous TIME OUT sentence.
Don't be confused; I just found that the appeal Never Happened. :)
