Charles Ray Tippit v. J. J. Clark, Warden

Fifth Circuit

Charles Ray Tippit v. J. J. Clark, Warden

444 F.2d 534, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9391

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 22, 1971

Docket71-1497_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 444 F.2d 534 (Charles Ray Tippit v. J. J. Clark, Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Charles Ray Tippit v. J. J. Clark, Warden, 444 F.2d 534, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9391 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s Local Rule 9(e) (2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 5 Cir. 1969, 412 F.2d 981.

The appellant, represented by court-appointed counsel, pleaded guilty to a 17 count information charging violations of Title 18, U.S.C., §§ 2312 and 2313. He was sentenced by the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on March 6, 1964 to serve a five-year sentence running consecutively to 16 concurrent five-year sentences. He was released from custody on February 3, 1970 pursuant to the mandatory release provisions of Title 18, U.S.C., § 4163, with 1326 days remaining to be served. However, he was re-incarcerat *535 ed on October 20, 1970 on authority of a mandatory release violator’s warrant which was issued on August 14, 1970, and based upon his conviction for disorderly conduct, his failure to submit the required supervision report, his failure to report to his probation officer as directed, and his failure to report his change in residence.

In his habeas petition, which the district court treated as one for the writ of mandamus, the appellant contends that his release under Title 18, U. S.C., § 4163 was absolute, and therefore his re-incarceration is invalid. He also argues that he cannot be incarcerated beyond ten years from the date of his sentencing; and, that once good time credits are accumulated and one is released from prison, they cannot thereafter be forfeited.

These contentions are each devoid of merit. This Court’s decisions in Buchanan v. Blackwell, 5 Cir. 1967, 372 F.2d 451, and Garnett v. Blackwell, 5 Cir. 1970, 423 F.2d 1211, are dispositive of all the issues presented.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s Local Rule 9(e) (2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 5 Cir. 1969, 412 F.2d 981.

The appellant, represented by court-appointed counsel, pleaded guilty to a 17 count information charging violations of Title 18, U.S.C., §§ 2312 and 2313. He was sentenced by the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on March 6, 1964 to serve a five-year sentence running consecutively to 16 concurrent five-year sentences. He was released from custody on February 3, 1970 pursuant to the mandatory release provisions of Title 18, U.S.C., § 4163, with 1326 days remaining to be served. However, he was re-incarcerat *535 ed on October 20, 1970 on authority of a mandatory release violator’s warrant which was issued on August 14, 1970, and based upon his conviction for disorderly conduct, his failure to submit the required supervision report, his failure to report to his probation officer as directed, and his failure to report his change in residence.

In his habeas petition, which the district court treated as one for the writ of mandamus, the appellant contends that his release under Title 18, U. S.C., § 4163 was absolute, and therefore his re-incarceration is invalid. He also argues that he cannot be incarcerated beyond ten years from the date of his sentencing; and, that once good time credits are accumulated and one is released from prison, they cannot thereafter be forfeited.

These contentions are each devoid of merit. This Court’s decisions in Buchanan v. Blackwell, 5 Cir. 1967, 372 F.2d 451, and Garnett v. Blackwell, 5 Cir. 1970, 423 F.2d 1211, are dispositive of all the issues presented.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

444 F.2d 534, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-ray-tippit-v-j-j-clark-warden-ca5-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack