George Joseph Thomas, Jr. v. United States

Fifth Circuit

George Joseph Thomas, Jr. v. United States

539 F.2d 572, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6914

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 27, 1976

Docket76-2526

StatusPublished

This text of 539 F.2d 572 (George Joseph Thomas, Jr. v. United States) 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

George Joseph Thomas, Jr. v. United States, 539 F.2d 572, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6914 (5th Cir. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In his habeas petition 1 and briefs in this court appellant contends that (1) after the issuance of a parole violator’s warrant, he was denied a prompt revocation hearing as required by Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1974), and (2) the failure promptly to dispose of the parole violator’s charge requires that the federal detainer be lifted. Appellant was in custody on state charges at the time of issuance of the federal warrant and detainer. Hence, this case is controlled by Cook v. United States Attorney General, 488 F.2d. 667 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 846, 95 S.Ct. 8, 42 L.Ed.2d 75 (1974), in which we held that a revocation hearing *573 was not required, at the commencement of the state imprisonment, oh an issued but unexecuted parole violator’s warrant. 2 Accordingly, appellant’s contentions are without merit. The district court’s judgment denying the petition is AFFIRMED.

1

. Jurisdiction in the district court was based on 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

2

. As appellant notes, some circuits have not followed our position. See United States ex rel. Hahn v. Revis, 520 F.2d 632 (7th Cir. 1975); Cooper v. Lockhart, 489 F.2d 308 (8th Cir. 1973). Other circuits have adopted our rule. See Gaddy v. Michael, 519 F.2d 669 (4th Cir. 1975); Small v. Britton, 500 F.2d 299 (10th Cir. 1974). We are, of course, bound by Cook unless it is overturned by Supreme Court or en banc action.

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

PER CURIAM:

In his habeas petition 1 and briefs in this court appellant contends that (1) after the issuance of a parole violator’s warrant, he was denied a prompt revocation hearing as required by Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1974), and (2) the failure promptly to dispose of the parole violator’s charge requires that the federal detainer be lifted. Appellant was in custody on state charges at the time of issuance of the federal warrant and detainer. Hence, this case is controlled by Cook v. United States Attorney General, 488 F.2d. 667 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 846, 95 S.Ct. 8, 42 L.Ed.2d 75 (1974), in which we held that a revocation hearing *573 was not required, at the commencement of the state imprisonment, oh an issued but unexecuted parole violator’s warrant. 2 Accordingly, appellant’s contentions are without merit. The district court’s judgment denying the petition is AFFIRMED.

1

. Jurisdiction in the district court was based on 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

2

. As appellant notes, some circuits have not followed our position. See United States ex rel. Hahn v. Revis, 520 F.2d 632 (7th Cir. 1975); Cooper v. Lockhart, 489 F.2d 308 (8th Cir. 1973). Other circuits have adopted our rule. See Gaddy v. Michael, 519 F.2d 669 (4th Cir. 1975); Small v. Britton, 500 F.2d 299 (10th Cir. 1974). We are, of course, bound by Cook unless it is overturned by Supreme Court or en banc action.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

539 F.2d 572, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-joseph-thomas-jr-v-united-states-ca5-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack