Lawrence Morrison v. David M. Heritage, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia

Fifth Circuit

Lawrence Morrison v. David M. Heritage, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia

324 F.2d 698

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 14, 1963

Docket20412_1

StatusPublished

This text of 324 F.2d 698 (Lawrence Morrison v. David M. Heritage, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia) 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

Lawrence Morrison v. David M. Heritage, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, 324 F.2d 698 (5th Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, by petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserted that he was being forced to serve 154 more days of his sentence than required because of an illegal deprivation of statutory good time. The District Court denied the relief. Since the entire sentence, without reduction for good time, has now been served and Appellant is no longer in the custody of the Warden of the Atlanta Penitentiary, the question presented is moot. The appeal must be dismissed for mootness.

Whether there was an illegal deprivation of good time, whether some procedure is available to judicially establish the facts, and whether any such determination would entitle Appellant to any relief including a reduction in the duration of his parole under supervision of the Parole Board are matters we need not, and do not, here decide.

Appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, by petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserted that he was being forced to serve 154 more days of his sentence than required because of an illegal deprivation of statutory good time. The District Court denied the relief. Since the entire sentence, without reduction for good time, has now been served and Appellant is no longer in the custody of the Warden of the Atlanta Penitentiary, the question presented is moot. The appeal must be dismissed for mootness.

Whether there was an illegal deprivation of good time, whether some procedure is available to judicially establish the facts, and whether any such determination would entitle Appellant to any relief including a reduction in the duration of his parole under supervision of the Parole Board are matters we need not, and do not, here decide.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

324 F.2d 698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-morrison-v-david-m-heritage-warden-u-s-penitentiary-ca5-1963.