O'Neal v. Fleming, Superintendent of District of Columbia Workhouse

Fourth Circuit

O'Neal v. Fleming, Superintendent of District of Columbia Workhouse

201 F.2d 665, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2339

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 23, 1953

Docket6533_1

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 201 F.2d 665 (O'Neal v. Fleming, Superintendent of District of Columbia Workhouse) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

O'Neal v. Fleming, Superintendent of District of Columbia Workhouse, 201 F.2d 665, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2339 (4th Cir. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant had been convicted of crime in the District Court for the District of Columbia and had been granted conditional release under the “good time” provisions of the statute relating to imprisonment. Following charges of intoxication and larceny, a warrant had been issued for his arrest as a parole violator and he had been imprisoned to serve the remainder of his sentence. His contention here is' that this imprisonment is unlawful because, as he contends, the provision of the Code, 18 U.S. C. § 4164, as amended, is unconstitutional in that it permits the Parole Board to deprive a prisoner of “good time”, or reduction of the sentence of imprisonment, which he has earned by good behavior. There is no merit in this contention. See United States ex rel. Rowe v. Nicholson, 4 Cir., 78 F.2d 468; United States ex rel. Nicholson v. Dillard, 4 Cir., 102 F.2d 94.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant had been convicted of crime in the District Court for the District of Columbia and had been granted conditional release under the “good time” provisions of the statute relating to imprisonment. Following charges of intoxication and larceny, a warrant had been issued for his arrest as a parole violator and he had been imprisoned to serve the remainder of his sentence. His contention here is' that this imprisonment is unlawful because, as he contends, the provision of the Code, 18 U.S. C. § 4164, as amended, is unconstitutional in that it permits the Parole Board to deprive a prisoner of “good time”, or reduction of the sentence of imprisonment, which he has earned by good behavior. There is no merit in this contention. See United States ex rel. Rowe v. Nicholson, 4 Cir., 78 F.2d 468; United States ex rel. Nicholson v. Dillard, 4 Cir., 102 F.2d 94.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 F.2d 665, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneal-v-fleming-superintendent-of-district-of-columbia-workhouse-ca4-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack