Joe Willie Starks v. C.E. Floyd, Warden

Ninth Circuit

Joe Willie Starks v. C.E. Floyd, Warden

119 F.3d 7, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 26049, 1997 WL 406261

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 18, 1997

Docket96-16671

StatusUnpublished

This text of 119 F.3d 7 (Joe Willie Starks v. C.E. Floyd, Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Joe Willie Starks v. C.E. Floyd, Warden, 119 F.3d 7, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 26049, 1997 WL 406261 (9th Cir. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

119 F.3d 7

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Joe Willie STARKS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
C.E. FLOYD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 96-16671.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 14, 1997**
Decided July 18, 1997.

Before HUG, Chief Judge, KOZINSKI, and LEAVY, Circuit JJ.

MEMORANDUM*

Joe Willie Starks, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging the United States Parole Commission's ("Commission") decision regarding his release on parole. Starks contends that his incarceration is illegal because the Commission improperly decided that his two sentences for bank robbery would run consecutively and denied him credit for time spent on mandatory release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we review de novo, see Rizzo v. Armstrong, 921 F.2d 855, 858 (9th Cir.1990). "Our review is limited to whether the Commission acted outside its statutory authority or committed a constitutional violation." Id.; see Wallace v. Christiansen, 802 F.2d 1539, 1552 (9th Cir.1986) (en banc).

We affirm for the reasons stated in the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed on June 28, 1996, and adopted by the district court on July 30, 1996. We do not address Starks contention that the Commission failed to hold a hearing in September of 1983, within ninety days of the issuance of the mandatory release violator warrant, because it is raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith v. United States Parole Comm'n, 875 F.2d 1361, 1369 (9th Cir.1989).

AFFIRMED.

**

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3

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

119 F.3d 7

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Joe Willie STARKS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
C.E. FLOYD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 96-16671.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 14, 1997**
Decided July 18, 1997.

Before HUG, Chief Judge, KOZINSKI, and LEAVY, Circuit JJ.

MEMORANDUM*

Joe Willie Starks, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging the United States Parole Commission's ("Commission") decision regarding his release on parole. Starks contends that his incarceration is illegal because the Commission improperly decided that his two sentences for bank robbery would run consecutively and denied him credit for time spent on mandatory release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we review de novo, see Rizzo v. Armstrong, 921 F.2d 855, 858 (9th Cir.1990). "Our review is limited to whether the Commission acted outside its statutory authority or committed a constitutional violation." Id.; see Wallace v. Christiansen, 802 F.2d 1539, 1552 (9th Cir.1986) (en banc).

We affirm for the reasons stated in the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed on June 28, 1996, and adopted by the district court on July 30, 1996. We do not address Starks contention that the Commission failed to hold a hearing in September of 1983, within ninety days of the issuance of the mandatory release violator warrant, because it is raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith v. United States Parole Comm'n, 875 F.2d 1361, 1369 (9th Cir.1989).

AFFIRMED.

**

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 F.3d 7, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 26049, 1997 WL 406261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joe-willie-starks-v-ce-floyd-warden-ca9-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack