Paul W. Granville v. Marvin Hogan, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary

Fifth Circuit

Paul W. Granville v. Marvin Hogan, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary

591 F.2d 323, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 16169

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 16, 1979

Docket78-1487

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 591 F.2d 323 (Paul W. Granville v. Marvin Hogan, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary) 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

Paul W. Granville v. Marvin Hogan, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary, 591 F.2d 323, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 16169 (5th Cir. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a federal prisoner who violated his parole, challenges the revoking of his good time credits by appellee in this habeas action. As this Court recently noted in Lambert v. Warden et al., 591 F.2d 4, 8 (5th Cir. 1979) we see nothing in the legislative history of the Parole Commission and Reorganization Act, Pub. L. No. 94-233, 90 Stat. 219 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 4201 et seq.) which indicates that Congress intended to alter the well-established rule that parole violators forfeit their good time credits and time spent on conditional release. Lambert, supra, at 8.

Petitioner also contends that the utilization of a magistrate delayed the judicial process, that his petition was not acted upon expeditiously, that he was entitled to a hearing, and that he was entitled to a court appointed attorney. As these arguments are without merit, we affirm the district court’s denial of habeas relief.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a federal prisoner who violated his parole, challenges the revoking of his good time credits by appellee in this habeas action. As this Court recently noted in Lambert v. Warden et al., 591 F.2d 4, 8 (5th Cir. 1979) we see nothing in the legislative history of the Parole Commission and Reorganization Act, Pub. L. No. 94-233, 90 Stat. 219 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 4201 et seq.) which indicates that Congress intended to alter the well-established rule that parole violators forfeit their good time credits and time spent on conditional release. Lambert, supra, at 8.

Petitioner also contends that the utilization of a magistrate delayed the judicial process, that his petition was not acted upon expeditiously, that he was entitled to a hearing, and that he was entitled to a court appointed attorney. As these arguments are without merit, we affirm the district court’s denial of habeas relief.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

591 F.2d 323, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 16169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-w-granville-v-marvin-hogan-warden-u-s-penitentiary-ca5-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack