                 United States Court of Appeals
              for the district of columbia circuit



No. 96-3119                                  September Term, 1997

United States of America,
               Appellee
               
v.

David Roach,
               Appellant
               


          Appeal from the United States District Court
                  for the District of Columbia
                         (No. 96ms0020)
                                



     Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Wald and Tatel, Circuit Judges.


                            O R D E R

     On April 1, 1997, this court issued an opinion upholding the conviction of appellant David
Roach under 18 U.S.C.  401(3) (1994).  United States v. Roach, 108 F.3d 1477 (D.C. Cir.),
cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 446 (1997).  In the opinion, we rejected Roach's argument that he was
denied a jury trial in violation of the Sixth Amendment.  Id. at 1484.  On December 19, 1997, in a
case involving another employee of the Department of Corrections, Dr. Anthony Rapone, who
was also convicted of criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C.  401(3), another panel of this court
held that the defendant was entitled to a jury trial under 42 U.S.C.  2000h (1994) ("In any
proceeding for criminal contempt arising under title II, III, IV, V, VI, or VII of [the Civil Rights
Act of 1964], the accused, upon demand therefor, shall be entitled to a trial by jury, which shall
conform as near as may be to the practice in criminal cases.").  United States v. Rapone, 131 F.3d
188, 195-97 (D.C. Cir. 1997).  
     Although Roach did not argue before us that he had a statutory right to a jury trial, we
believe that in light of this court's decision in Rapone, Roach should receive a jury trial under 42
U.S.C.  2000(h).  Because we would not have reached the issue had we originally granted Roach
a jury trial under this statute, we vacate the portion of our previous decision in Roach dealing
with Roach's constitutional right to a jury trial.  Roach, 108 F.3d at 1484.  We also vacate those
portions of the opinion addressing the sufficiency of the evidence against Roach, id. at 1481-82,
and Roach's sentencing, id. at 1484-85.  All other portions of the opinion shall remain unaffected
by this order.
                                   Per Curiam.
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk



Filed on February 19, 1998


