Raymond v. Masterson v. Henry M. Lindsay, Superintendent, District Reformatory

Fourth Circuit

Raymond v. Masterson v. Henry M. Lindsay, Superintendent, District Reformatory

219 F.2d 236, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 2902

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 7, 1955

Docket6897

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 219 F.2d 236 (Raymond v. Masterson v. Henry M. Lindsay, Superintendent, District Reformatory) 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

Raymond v. Masterson v. Henry M. Lindsay, Superintendent, District Reformatory, 219 F.2d 236, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 2902 (4th Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant was convicted of crime in the District of Columbia and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He was released under the provisions of the “good time” statute, 18 U.S.C. § 4161, but before the expiration of his *237 term was arrested for violation of the conditions of release and the Parole Board, after a hearing, entered an order requiring him to serve the remainder of the term. Appellant contends that the Parole Board was without jurisdiction in the premises, that, at all events, he was not subject to arrest for violation of the conditions of release unless such violation constituted a crime, and that the provision of the statute creating the status of prisoners under parole for those released under the “good time” provision is unconstitutional and void. There is no merit in any of these contentions. See United States ex rel. Nicholson v. Dillard, 4 Cir., 102 F.2d 94; Costner v. United States, 4 Cir., 180 F.2d 892; Hicks v. Reid, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 109, 194 F.2d 327, certiorari denied 344 U.S. 840, 73 S.Ct. 51, 97 L.Ed. 653; Gould v. Green, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 363, 141 F.2d 533; United States ex rel. Jacobs v. Bare, 6 Cir., 141 F.2d 480; Story v. Rives, 68 App.D.C. 325, 97 F.2d 182.

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 was convicted of crime in the District of Columbia and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He was released under the provisions of the “good time” statute, 18 U.S.C. § 4161, but before the expiration of his *237 term was arrested for violation of the conditions of release and the Parole Board, after a hearing, entered an order requiring him to serve the remainder of the term. Appellant contends that the Parole Board was without jurisdiction in the premises, that, at all events, he was not subject to arrest for violation of the conditions of release unless such violation constituted a crime, and that the provision of the statute creating the status of prisoners under parole for those released under the “good time” provision is unconstitutional and void. There is no merit in any of these contentions. See United States ex rel. Nicholson v. Dillard, 4 Cir., 102 F.2d 94; Costner v. United States, 4 Cir., 180 F.2d 892; Hicks v. Reid, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 109, 194 F.2d 327, certiorari denied 344 U.S. 840, 73 S.Ct. 51, 97 L.Ed. 653; Gould v. Green, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 363, 141 F.2d 533; United States ex rel. Jacobs v. Bare, 6 Cir., 141 F.2d 480; Story v. Rives, 68 App.D.C. 325, 97 F.2d 182.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 F.2d 236, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 2902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raymond-v-masterson-v-henry-m-lindsay-superintendent-district-ca4-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack