Haywood Williams, Jr. v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Haywood Williams, Jr. v. United States

431 F.2d 873, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7400

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 9, 1970

Docket29851

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 431 F.2d 873 (Haywood Williams, 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

Haywood Williams, Jr. v. United States, 431 F.2d 873, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7400 (5th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is taken from an order of the district court denying the petition of a federal convict for the writ of habeas corpus. We affirm. 1

Appellant alleges that he has been deprived of 75 days of his accumulated good time without being given a hearing. The district court found from the record that appellant was present at a hearing before the good time forfeiture board, resulting in the board recommending forfeiture of good time. The record reflects that this is correct.

Appellant does not indicate that he has applied to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons for a recommendation to restore his good time. Before a prisoner can avail himself of judicial review for loss of good time, he must first exhaust his administrative remedies. 18 U.S.C. § 4166. Gilchrist v. United States, 5th Cir. 1970, 429 F.2d 1132 [No. 29456, June 17, 1970]; Lynch v. United States, 5th Cir. 1969, 414 F.2d 281; Smoake v. Willingham, 10th Cir. 1966, 359 F.2d 386. The judgment below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

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

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

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is taken from an order of the district court denying the petition of a federal convict for the writ of habeas corpus. We affirm. 1

Appellant alleges that he has been deprived of 75 days of his accumulated good time without being given a hearing. The district court found from the record that appellant was present at a hearing before the good time forfeiture board, resulting in the board recommending forfeiture of good time. The record reflects that this is correct.

Appellant does not indicate that he has applied to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons for a recommendation to restore his good time. Before a prisoner can avail himself of judicial review for loss of good time, he must first exhaust his administrative remedies. 18 U.S.C. § 4166. Gilchrist v. United States, 5th Cir. 1970, 429 F.2d 1132 [No. 29456, June 17, 1970]; Lynch v. United States, 5th Cir. 1969, 414 F.2d 281; Smoake v. Willingham, 10th Cir. 1966, 359 F.2d 386. The judgment below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

431 F.2d 873, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haywood-williams-jr-v-united-states-ca5-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack