James William Johnson v. Richard A. Chappell, Chairman U. S. Board of Parole

D.C. Circuit

James William Johnson v. Richard A. Chappell, Chairman U. S. Board of Parole

327 F.2d 888, 117 U.S. App. D.C. 190, 54 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2779, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6710

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 16, 1964

Docket17927_1

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 327 F.2d 888 (James William Johnson v. Richard A. Chappell, Chairman U. S. Board of Parole) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James William Johnson v. Richard A. Chappell, Chairman U. S. Board of Parole, 327 F.2d 888, 117 U.S. App. D.C. 190, 54 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2779, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6710 (D.C. Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The real point on appeal revolves around the revocation of appellant’s parole on the basis of evidence before the Board which was not the basis upon which the original arrest warrant for violation of parole had been issued. The evidence referred to was an indictment of appellant, followed by his plea of guilty, for violation of the Dyer Act. However, appellant had some six or seven months notice, prior to his final revocation hearing, that the Board considered this new evidence to be ground for revocation. In these circumstances we do not think the use of the evidence invalidates the revocation order.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The real point on appeal revolves around the revocation of appellant’s parole on the basis of evidence before the Board which was not the basis upon which the original arrest warrant for violation of parole had been issued. The evidence referred to was an indictment of appellant, followed by his plea of guilty, for violation of the Dyer Act. However, appellant had some six or seven months notice, prior to his final revocation hearing, that the Board considered this new evidence to be ground for revocation. In these circumstances we do not think the use of the evidence invalidates the revocation order.

Affirmed.

Arthur Shelton v. United States Board of Parole, Harvey Marion Boswell v. United States Board of Parole, Donald L. Smith v. .Hugh Rivers, Chairman, District of Columbia Board of Parole, Elbert Henry White v. United States Board of Parole, John L. Jacobs v. District of Columbia Board of Parole, George L. Williams v. Paul H. Preston, Superintendent, District of Columbia Jail

388 F.2d 567 (D.C. Circuit, 1967)

Retail Clerks Local Union No. 381, Affiliated With the Retail Clerks International Associations, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, Industrial Conference Board and Kitsap County Retail Druggists' Association v. National Labor Relations Board, National Labor Relations Board v. Industrial Conference Board and Kitsap County Retail Druggists' Association

348 F.2d 64 (D.C. Circuit, 1965)

Retail Clerks Local Union No. 381 v. National Labor Relations Board

348 F.2d 64 (D.C. Circuit, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

327 F.2d 888, 117 U.S. App. D.C. 190, 54 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2779, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-william-johnson-v-richard-a-chappell-chairman-u-s-board-of-cadc-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack