Losieau v. Hunter

D.C. Circuit

Losieau v. Hunter

193 F.2d 41, 90 U.S. App. D.C. 85, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2862

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 29, 1951

Docket11040_1

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 193 F.2d 41 (Losieau v. Hunter) 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

Losieau v. Hunter, 193 F.2d 41, 90 U.S. App. D.C. 85, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2862 (D.C. Cir. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus says he is a prisoner in Leavenworth Penitentiary and eligible for parole; that he twice applied for parole; and that on each occasion he was interviewed for not more than two minutes by a member of the Parole Board and was notified shortly after-wards that his application had been considered and denied. He was given no reason for these denials.

The District Court rightly dismissed the petition. “A prisoner is released on parole by the United States Board of Parole wholly as a matter of discretion when it is made to appear to said Board, from a report by the proper officers of any United States prison, or upon application by a prisoner for release on parole, ‘that there is a reasonable probability that such applicant will live and remain at liberty without violating the laws, and if [when] in the opinion of the board such release is not incompatible with the welfare of society * * *.’ ” Story v. Rives, 68 App.D.C. 325, 329, 97 F.2d 182, 186, certiorari denied, 305 U.S. 595, 59 S.Ct. 71, 83 L.Ed. 377. 18 U.S.C. § 4203(a). Appellant’s petition does not assert that the Board failed toi consider his applications.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus says he is a prisoner in Leavenworth Penitentiary and eligible for parole; that he twice applied for parole; and that on each occasion he was interviewed for not more than two minutes by a member of the Parole Board and was notified shortly after-wards that his application had been considered and denied. He was given no reason for these denials.

The District Court rightly dismissed the petition. “A prisoner is released on parole by the United States Board of Parole wholly as a matter of discretion when it is made to appear to said Board, from a report by the proper officers of any United States prison, or upon application by a prisoner for release on parole, ‘that there is a reasonable probability that such applicant will live and remain at liberty without violating the laws, and if [when] in the opinion of the board such release is not incompatible with the welfare of society * * *.’ ” Story v. Rives, 68 App.D.C. 325, 329, 97 F.2d 182, 186, certiorari denied, 305 U.S. 595, 59 S.Ct. 71, 83 L.Ed. 377. 18 U.S.C. § 4203(a). Appellant’s petition does not assert that the Board failed toi consider his applications.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 F.2d 41, 90 U.S. App. D.C. 85, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/losieau-v-hunter-cadc-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack