Rogge v. Miles

Fifth Circuit

Rogge v. Miles

134 F. App'x 692

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 13, 2005

Docket04-40422

StatusUnpublished

This text of 134 F. App'x 692 (Rogge v. Miles) 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

Rogge v. Miles, 134 F. App'x 692 (5th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Leslie Ibsen Rogge, federal prisoner # 13915-004, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Ibsen challenged the determination by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) that he had escaped from incarceration, rather than being inadvertently released, and therefore that he was not entitled to credit for the 3884 days he was out of custody. Rogge has not established that the district court erred in determining that the BOP properly found that Rogge had escaped and was not entitled to the credit. See Royal v. Tombone, 141 F.3d 596, 599 (5th Cir.1998); Phillips v. Dutton, 378 F.2d 898, 898 (5th Cir.1967).

Rogge also contends that the BOP denied him due process by failing to give him notice and provide him with a hearing before deciding not to award him the credit for the time he spent out of custody. Because Rogge failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on this ground, he is not entitled to relief. See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335-36, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992). Even if Rogge had exhausted the claim, he has not demonstrated a due process violation. Cf. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557, 561, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 957-58 (5th Cir.2000). The judgment of the district court is thus AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

PER CURIAM: *

Leslie Ibsen Rogge, federal prisoner # 13915-004, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Ibsen challenged the determination by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) that he had escaped from incarceration, rather than being inadvertently released, and therefore that he was not entitled to credit for the 3884 days he was out of custody. Rogge has not established that the district court erred in determining that the BOP properly found that Rogge had escaped and was not entitled to the credit. See Royal v. Tombone, 141 F.3d 596, 599 (5th Cir.1998); Phillips v. Dutton, 378 F.2d 898, 898 (5th Cir.1967).

Rogge also contends that the BOP denied him due process by failing to give him notice and provide him with a hearing before deciding not to award him the credit for the time he spent out of custody. Because Rogge failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on this ground, he is not entitled to relief. See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335-36, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992). Even if Rogge had exhausted the claim, he has not demonstrated a due process violation. Cf. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557, 561, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 957-58 (5th Cir.2000). The judgment of the district court is thus AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 F. App'x 692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogge-v-miles-ca5-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack