James David Williams v. U. S. Board of Paroles

Fifth Circuit

James David Williams v. U. S. Board of Paroles

428 F.2d 1210, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8013

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 24, 1970

Docket29596_1

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 428 F.2d 1210 (James David Williams v. U. S. Board of Paroles) 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

James David Williams v. U. S. Board of Paroles, 428 F.2d 1210, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8013 (5th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is taken from an order of the District Court denying the petition of a federal prisoner for a writ of habeas corpus without first holding an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. 1

Appellant was sentenced on March 21, 1966, to three years imprisonment for mail theft, a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § *1211 1708. After serving 19 months on his sentence, he was released on parole on. October 25, 1967. On March 22, 1968, a parole violation warrant was issued, but was not executed as will be seen. On February 14, 1969, appellant was arrested on charges of interstate transportation of a forged security, a violation of 18 U.S. C.A. § 2314. He was released on bond on March 20, 1969, but was arrested on the parole. violator warrant the next day which happened to be the day following the expiration of the maximum three year sentence. On May 6, 1969, the parole board revoked parole and held forfeited all accumulated good time. Appellant was subsequently convicted on his plea of guilty on the forged security charge, and was sentenced to one year imprisonment to run consecutive to his unexpired sentence.

In his habeas petition, appellant challenged the validity of executing the parole violation warrant subsequent to the expiration of the maximum term of the sentence. He also contended that good time earned prior to his being paroled should not have been forfeited.

The district court correctly held that 18 U.S.C.A., § 4205 requires that a parole violator warrant be issued within the maximum term to which the violator was sentenced, but it does not require that the warrant be served within that time. Buchanan v. Blackwell, 5 Cir., 1967, 372 F.2d 451; Smith v. Blackwell, 5 Cir., 1966, 367 F.2d 539. That is the case here. Thus the execution of the warrant in issue was valid.

Nor is appellant entitled to have his earned good time reinstated. When a parolee has violated the terms of his release, the Board of Parole may revoke his earned good time and require him to serve the full unexpired term of his original sentence. 18 U.S.C.A. § 4207; Smith v. Attorney General, 5 Cir., 1969, 420 F.2d 488; Lynch v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969, 414 F.2d 281.

Affirmed.

1

. We dispose of this case on the briefs and record, without oral argument, as provided by our Local Rule 18.

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 prisoner for a writ of habeas corpus without first holding an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. 1

Appellant was sentenced on March 21, 1966, to three years imprisonment for mail theft, a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § *1211 1708. After serving 19 months on his sentence, he was released on parole on. October 25, 1967. On March 22, 1968, a parole violation warrant was issued, but was not executed as will be seen. On February 14, 1969, appellant was arrested on charges of interstate transportation of a forged security, a violation of 18 U.S. C.A. § 2314. He was released on bond on March 20, 1969, but was arrested on the parole. violator warrant the next day which happened to be the day following the expiration of the maximum three year sentence. On May 6, 1969, the parole board revoked parole and held forfeited all accumulated good time. Appellant was subsequently convicted on his plea of guilty on the forged security charge, and was sentenced to one year imprisonment to run consecutive to his unexpired sentence.

In his habeas petition, appellant challenged the validity of executing the parole violation warrant subsequent to the expiration of the maximum term of the sentence. He also contended that good time earned prior to his being paroled should not have been forfeited.

The district court correctly held that 18 U.S.C.A., § 4205 requires that a parole violator warrant be issued within the maximum term to which the violator was sentenced, but it does not require that the warrant be served within that time. Buchanan v. Blackwell, 5 Cir., 1967, 372 F.2d 451; Smith v. Blackwell, 5 Cir., 1966, 367 F.2d 539. That is the case here. Thus the execution of the warrant in issue was valid.

Nor is appellant entitled to have his earned good time reinstated. When a parolee has violated the terms of his release, the Board of Parole may revoke his earned good time and require him to serve the full unexpired term of his original sentence. 18 U.S.C.A. § 4207; Smith v. Attorney General, 5 Cir., 1969, 420 F.2d 488; Lynch v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969, 414 F.2d 281.

Affirmed.

1

. We dispose of this case on the briefs and record, without oral argument, as provided by our Local Rule 18.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

428 F.2d 1210, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-david-williams-v-u-s-board-of-paroles-ca5-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack