Raymond I. Brantley v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Raymond I. Brantley v. United States

448 F.2d 770

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 16, 1971

Docket71-1822_1

StatusPublished

This text of 448 F.2d 770 (Raymond I. Brantley v. United States) 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

Raymond I. Brantley v. United States, 448 F.2d 770 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed a habeas petition in the district court seeking immediate reinstatement of his mandatory release from a five-year federal sentence. He alleged that he had never been informed whether his mandatory release had been revoked although nearly five months had elapsed since his revocation hearing before the parole board. 1

Appellant’s full sentence expired on June 1, 1971, on which date he was released from federal custody. Thus the appeal is rendered moot and is therefore dismissed.

1

. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s local Rule 9(c) (2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time ■ fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 5th Cir. 1969, 412 F.2d 981.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed a habeas petition in the district court seeking immediate reinstatement of his mandatory release from a five-year federal sentence. He alleged that he had never been informed whether his mandatory release had been revoked although nearly five months had elapsed since his revocation hearing before the parole board. 1

Appellant’s full sentence expired on June 1, 1971, on which date he was released from federal custody. Thus the appeal is rendered moot and is therefore dismissed.

1

. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s local Rule 9(c) (2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time ■ fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 5th Cir. 1969, 412 F.2d 981.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

448 F.2d 770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raymond-i-brantley-v-united-states-ca5-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack