Harold C. Hoover v. J. C. Taylor, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas

Tenth Circuit

Harold C. Hoover v. J. C. Taylor, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas

334 F.2d 281, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4862

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedJune 29, 1964

Docket7681

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 334 F.2d 281 (Harold C. Hoover v. J. C. Taylor, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harold C. Hoover v. J. C. Taylor, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, 334 F.2d 281, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4862 (10th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. After conviction upon two counts of Dyer Act violation petitioner was sentenced to consecutive terms of five and three years. With 1056 days yet unserved upon an aggregate eight-year senténce, petitioner was released upon mandatory release. After a brief period of liberty, petitioner violated the terms of his release and was returned to restraint and transferred to the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas. His good-time allowance was revoked in its entirety.

Although conceding that allowance for good time should be computed upon the aggregate of consecutive sentences, 18 U.S.C.A. § 4161, petitioner asserts that the burden of forfeited good time, 18 U.S.C.A. § 4165, cannot be similarly imposed and that where, as here, one of several consecutive sentences has been completely served in time before forfeiture the sentence can no longer be considered in the aggregate for such' purpose. We find no merit to the contention and hold that the consecutive sentences should be aggregated both for computation of good time and for its forfeiture. Grant v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 166 F.2d 673; Gibson v. Looney, 10 Cir., 258 F.2d 879; United States ex rel. Klein v. Kenton, 2 Cir., 327 F.2d 229.

The appeal being otherwise without merit, the judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. After conviction upon two counts of Dyer Act violation petitioner was sentenced to consecutive terms of five and three years. With 1056 days yet unserved upon an aggregate eight-year senténce, petitioner was released upon mandatory release. After a brief period of liberty, petitioner violated the terms of his release and was returned to restraint and transferred to the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas. His good-time allowance was revoked in its entirety.

Although conceding that allowance for good time should be computed upon the aggregate of consecutive sentences, 18 U.S.C.A. § 4161, petitioner asserts that the burden of forfeited good time, 18 U.S.C.A. § 4165, cannot be similarly imposed and that where, as here, one of several consecutive sentences has been completely served in time before forfeiture the sentence can no longer be considered in the aggregate for such' purpose. We find no merit to the contention and hold that the consecutive sentences should be aggregated both for computation of good time and for its forfeiture. Grant v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 166 F.2d 673; Gibson v. Looney, 10 Cir., 258 F.2d 879; United States ex rel. Klein v. Kenton, 2 Cir., 327 F.2d 229.

The appeal being otherwise without merit, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

334 F.2d 281, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harold-c-hoover-v-j-c-taylor-warden-united-states-penitentiary-ca10-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack