Reiff v. Richardson
This text of 298 F. Supp. 688 (Reiff v. Richardson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner, at the time of filing his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on [689]*689September 12, 1968, pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 2241,1 was in Federal custody as a mandatory release violator (i. e., parole violator). While the Court was awaiting the filing of the various responsive pleadings upon its Order to Show Cause, petitioner was mandatorily released from Federal custody under 18 U.S.C. § 4164 2 and became a parolee thereunder on March 20, 1969. Before considering petitioner’s contentions, it would be beneficial to summarize the relevant facts:
Upon his conviction for interstate transportation of securities in 1959, petitioner was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and five years’ probation. In 1965, while still in Federal prison, he was convicted and received an additional consecutive sentence of eighteen months and three years’ probation for mail fraud. In the same year a New York State court convicted him and imposed a further one-year sentence for petty larceny, to be served after release from the Federal penitentiary.
On May 30, 1966, due to good-time allowances, petitioner was mandatorily released from Federal custody, under parole status, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 4164. This release took place at Federal Detention Headquarters in New York City, to which petitioner had been transferred from the United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. At the time of this mandatory release, petitioner was taken into State custody and he commenced serving the previously imposed New York State court sentence for the petty larceny conviction.
In January 1967, petitioner was released by the New York authorities. He then absconded from his previously imposed Federal parole supervision in July 1967, and was returned to Federal prison as a mandatory release (i. e., parole) violator in January 1968.
Petitioner contends that he is entitled to have credit for the time served in State custody — seven months and twenty-eight days — applied against his original Federal sentence and present parole status; and that he thus is entitled to immediate release from the Federal parole restrictions.
After reviewing the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Response, petitioner’s Traverse to respondent’s Response, and the arguments and authori[690]*690ties set forth by the parties, this Court is fully advised in the premises and thus orders that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied for the following reasons:
Petitioner contends that he was not “released” under the provisions of 18 U. S.C. § 4164, but instead was “transferred” to New York State custody under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 40823, and thus that his Federal sentences were still running while he was in New York State custody. Petitioner primarily relies on 18 U.S.C. § 4281 as support for this contention. That statute provides:
“A person convicted under the laws of the United States shall, upon discharge from imprisonment, or release on parole, be furnished with transportation to the place of conviction or bona fide residence within the United States at the time of his commitment or to such place within the United [691]*691States as may be authorized by the Attorney General.
“He shall also be furnished with such suitable clothing as may be authorized by the Attorney General, and, in the discretion of the Attorney General, an amount of money not to exceed $100.” (Emphasis added)
Petitioner contends that since he was not given transportation, suitable clothing, or money upon his release, he was in fact “transferred” and not “released” and thus his terms of Federal custody were not waived, tolled or suspended by the State custody.
Petitioner’s argument is erroneous and clearly without merit. Section 4281 of Title 18, United States Code, does not create a right in the petitioner to be released at any particular place, or in any particular manner. The statute says that the person to be discharged may also be “furnished with transportation * * * to such place * * * as may be authorized by the Attorney General.” This clause, when considered in light of 18 U.S.C. § 4164 certainly evidences no intent to waive, toll or suspend Federal parole jurisdiction. Section 4164 of Title 18, United States Code, provides as follows:
“A prisoner having served his term or terms less good-time deductions shall, upon release, be deemed as if released on parole until the expiration of the maximum term or terms for which he was sentenced less one hundred and eighty days.
“This section shall not prevent delivery of a prisoner to the authorities of any State otherwise entitled to his custody.” (Emphasis added)
In the instant case, petitioner was transferred from the United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, to the Federal Detention Headquarters in New York City pursuant to a detainer issued by the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. It is clear that the Attorney General had the power to make such a delivery of petitioner; and it is also clear that petitioner was in fact “released” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4164 and not merely “transferred”, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4082(b), to another institution in order to serve the remainder of his Federal sentences. Petitioner was released “as if * * * on parole”, and when he absconded from Federal parole supervision in July 1967, he was properly taken back into custody as a mandatory release (i. e., parole) violator.
Moreover, it is also apparent that petitioner is not entitled to credit for the time which he spent in State custody. The record discloses that petitioner’s conditional release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4164 was revoked by the United States Board of Parole prior to the expiration of the maximum term of his Federal sentences. That this action was properly within the power of the Board is made apparent by the following teaching of Welch v. Taylor, 292 F.2d 481, 483 (10th Cir. 1961), a case with a remarkably similar factual situation :
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
298 F. Supp. 688, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reiff-v-richardson-cacd-1969.