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

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided March 16, 1979·No. 78-1487·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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.

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

Pincite

591 F.2d 323 (Paul W. Granville v. Marvin Hogan, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related