Strauss v. Moos
| Decision Date | 15 July 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 16733.,16733. |
| Citation | 399 F.2d 1022 |
| Parties | Robert Samuel STRAUSS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James J. MOOS, U. S. Marshall, Southern District of Illinois, and Joseph N. Shore, U. S. Parole Board, Respondent-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Robert S. Strauss, pro se.
Richard E. Eagleton, U. S. Atty., Frank J. Violanti, Asst. U. S. Atty., Springfield, Ill., for appellee.
Before CASTLE, Chief Judge, DUFFY, Senior Circuit Judge, and HASTINGS, Circuit Judge.
The petitioner-appellant, Robert Samuel Strauss, appearing pro se, prosecutes this appeal from an order of the District Court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The record discloses that on October 24, 1967, after hearing oral argument in which petitioner's then counsel participated, but without conducting an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the petition and remanded the petitioner to custody.
Insofar as it is pertinent to the issue presented on appeal the petition alleges that on October 25, 1962, the petitioner was sentenced by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, to a five year term of imprisonment; that he was confined in the United States Penitentiary, Terre Haute, Indiana, until January 21, 1965, when he was released on parole; that he is detained in the custody of the respondent, James J. Moos,1 as a federal prisoner pursuant to an administrative parole violation warrant issued by the United States Parole Board over the signature of Joseph N. Shore, Parole Executive, under date of June 19, 1967, and served on petitioner October 3, 1967; that the application for such warrant, attached to the petition as an exhibit, "fails to set forth any facts sufficient to revoke the parole of petitioner"; and that as of October 24, 1967, petitioner has served the sentence imposed on him and entitled to be released.
Petitioner contends, in substance and effect, that the application for the warrant fails to charge a violation of a specific condition of parole and, therefore, the warrant based and issued thereon is unauthorized and invalid. And, that by virtue of the requirements of 18 U.S.C. A. § 4205, absent a valid parole violation warrant issued prior to the expiration of the period of his five year sentence the retaking of the petitioner for detention is unauthorized and illegal.
Section 4205 provides that a warrant for the retaking of a parolee for violation of parole "may be issued only * * within the maximum term or terms for which he was sentenced". When he is returned to the custody of the Attorney General under a warrant so issued "the unexpired term of imprisonment of any such prisoner shall begin to run" from the date of such return "and the time the prisoner...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States ex rel. Carioscia v. Meisner
...Board of Parole, 375 U.S. 957, 84 S.Ct. 446, 11 L.Ed.2d 315; Wright v. Settle, supra, 293 F.2d at 319; see, also, Strauss v. Moos, 399 F.2d 1022, 1023 (7th Cir. 1968). It is obvious, of course, that the two tests are closely related since, if there had been no violation of parole, revocatio......
-
Strauss v. Smith, 16881
...on the robbery charge on November 10, 1966 until the issuance of the parole revocation arrest warrant. This court in Strauss v. Moos, 399 F.2d 1022 (7th Cir. 1968), upheld the validity of the warrant but did not specifically refer to this issue. The delay in the issuance of the warrant was ......