
    Argued and submitted July 21,
    motion to dismiss denied; reversed and remanded for reconsideration November 8,
    reconsideration denied December 8,
    petition for review denied December 28,1989 (308 Or 660)
    THOMAS NICHOLAS MERIWEATHER, Petitioner, v. STATE BOARD OF PAROLE, Respondent.
    
    (CA A50461)
    781 P2d 1271
    Lawrence J. Hall, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
    Keith W. Wingfield, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
    Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Petitioner seeks review of an order setting his parole consideration date. ORS 144.228. He had sought review of an earlier order, and we reversed and remanded, because the Board of Parole might have applied the wrong rule. Meriweather v. Board of Parole, 97 Or App 212, 775 P2d 340 (1989). The order now under review was issued by the Board before our decision in the earlier case. It uses the same parole consideration date set in the order that we reversed and remanded.

The Board moved to dismiss the petition for review on the ground that it is moot in the light of the previous remand. The difficulty is that there is no indication that the Board has changed or reconsidered petitioner’s parole consideration date; dismissal of the petition for review would leave an incorrect order in place. Consequently, the motion to dismiss is denied, and the order is reversed and remanded for reconsideration in the light of Meriweather v. Board of Parole, supra.

Motion to dismiss denied; reversed and remanded for reconsideration.  