John Joseph Miller v. W. H. Hardwick, Warden, the U. S. Board of Parole, the United States of America

Fifth Circuit

John Joseph Miller v. W. H. Hardwick, Warden, the U. S. Board of Parole, the United States of America

229 F.2d 164, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3556

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 27, 1956

Docket15771

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 229 F.2d 164 (John Joseph Miller v. W. H. Hardwick, Warden, the U. S. Board of Parole, the United States of America) 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

John Joseph Miller v. W. H. Hardwick, Warden, the U. S. Board of Parole, the United States of America, 229 F.2d 164, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3556 (5th Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a judgment denying the writ of habeas corpus and dismissing the petition. The petition alleged that on a six year sentence the petitioner served, with excellent work and conduct reports, from February 1, 1950 to November 20, 1952, when he was released on pai’ole under the provisions of 18 U.S.C.A. § 4203. On November 18, 1953, he was retaken as a parole violator under the provisions of 18 U.S.C.A. § 4205. He was given a hearing before a member of the Board of Parole under 18 U.S.C.A. § 4207. The Board revoked the order of parole for “leaving the district of parole supervision without permission”, and ordered that the prisoner be required to serve the remainder of the term for which he was sentenced. The question is whether in computing the remainder of such tei'm he is entitled to a deduction of the good time allowances under 18 U.S.C.A. § 4161 for the period from February 1, 1950 to November 20, 1952 served before parole. The law seems to be settled that “the credit is not a vested right, but only contingent until a time arrives such that its allowance will end imprisonment.” Aderhold *165 v. Perry, 5 Cir., 59 F.2d 379, 380. Upon revocation of his parole, appellant could be required to serve the entire remainder of his term without any credit for “earned” good time. Platek v. Aderhold, 5 Cir., 73 F.2d 173; Harrell v. Aderhold, 5 Cir., 73 F.2d 189; United States ex rel. Rowe v. Nicholson, 4 Cir., 78 F.2d 468; Hedrick v. Steele, 8 Cir., 187 F.2d 261.

The judgment is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a judgment denying the writ of habeas corpus and dismissing the petition. The petition alleged that on a six year sentence the petitioner served, with excellent work and conduct reports, from February 1, 1950 to November 20, 1952, when he was released on pai’ole under the provisions of 18 U.S.C.A. § 4203. On November 18, 1953, he was retaken as a parole violator under the provisions of 18 U.S.C.A. § 4205. He was given a hearing before a member of the Board of Parole under 18 U.S.C.A. § 4207. The Board revoked the order of parole for “leaving the district of parole supervision without permission”, and ordered that the prisoner be required to serve the remainder of the term for which he was sentenced. The question is whether in computing the remainder of such tei'm he is entitled to a deduction of the good time allowances under 18 U.S.C.A. § 4161 for the period from February 1, 1950 to November 20, 1952 served before parole. The law seems to be settled that “the credit is not a vested right, but only contingent until a time arrives such that its allowance will end imprisonment.” Aderhold *165 v. Perry, 5 Cir., 59 F.2d 379, 380. Upon revocation of his parole, appellant could be required to serve the entire remainder of his term without any credit for “earned” good time. Platek v. Aderhold, 5 Cir., 73 F.2d 173; Harrell v. Aderhold, 5 Cir., 73 F.2d 189; United States ex rel. Rowe v. Nicholson, 4 Cir., 78 F.2d 468; Hedrick v. Steele, 8 Cir., 187 F.2d 261.

The judgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 F.2d 164, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-joseph-miller-v-w-h-hardwick-warden-the-u-s-board-of-parole-ca5-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack