In Vanderpool v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 874 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), the parole agent received official verification of the conviction on September 4, 2004, and the hearing was held on September 21, 2004, well within the 120-day period. On that basis, we rejected Vanderpool's contention that he did not have a timely hearing. It is true that the Board, in refuting Vanderpool's untimeliness claim, pointed out the confusion created by his use of aliases, but that observation was nothing more than an aside that was irrelevant to the Board's adjudication. The real import of Vanderpool was this Court's reiteration of the analysis in Lee v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 141 Pa. Commw. 79, 596 A.2d 264 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991): Moreover, considering the logistical problems the Board would face in discovering when a parolee was convicted, it is also reasonable for a parole agent to wait for official verification even if the agent is aware that charges are, or may be, pending. And finally, we hold as a matter of law, that if the parole revocation hearing is held within 120 days after the receipt of the certified charges, that also is reasonable for the purposes of due process. Vanderpool, 874 A.2d at 1284 (quoting Lee, 596 A.2d at 265).