Battle v. U.S. Parole Com'n, 86-2960
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Citation | 834 F.2d 419 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-2960,86-2960 |
| Parties | Bobby BATTLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Respondents-Appellees. Summary Calendar. |
| Decision Date | 10 July 1987 |
Page 419
v.
U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Respondents-Appellees.
Fifth Circuit.
Page 420
Bobby Battle, pro se.
Bob Wortham, U.S. Atty., Dave Smith, Tyler, Tex., for respondents-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Before POLITZ, WILLIAMS, and JONES, Circuit Judges:
PER CURIAM:
The district court denied the appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus, based on the decision of the U.S. Parole Commission revoking his special parole and resentencing him accordingly. We find no error, and AFFIRM.
Appellant Battle was convicted of distributing heroin, for which he was sentenced in November, 1975 to a prison term with a three-year special parole term. He was released from prison and completed his regular parole, but during the special parole term, he was charged and convicted of cocaine possession with intent to distribute. He was convicted of this offense and in January, 1985 was sentenced to serve four years. In May, 1985, he received a combined revocation hearing on his first special parole term and the initial parole hearing on the 1985 sentence. The Parole Commission revoked Battle's special parole, denying him credit for the time spent in that status. The unexpired portion of his original sentence was ordered to commence upon a release from the 1985 cocaine conviction Battle was to be continued to the expiration of the new sentence and was given a presumptive parole on the violator term of July 28, 1988. Appeal to the National Appeals Board was unsuccessful, as was Battle's effort to contest this sentence before the magistrate and district court.
Battle first contends that the Parole Commission does not have legal authority to supervise and revoke a special parole mandated by 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(c). Citing observations from several court opinions, he argues that only the district court has that authority. In United States v. Hernandez, 750 F.2d 1256, 1260 (5th Cir.1985), this court commented that "there is no reason why [the district court's] power [to order an appropriate sanction] does not also extend to sentencing a parole violator under Sec. 841(b)(1)(A)." See also United States v. Butler, 763 F.2d 11, 15 (1st Cir.1985); United States v. Glasser, 750 F.2d 1197, 1207 (3rd Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1018, 105 S.Ct. 2148, 85 L.Ed.2d 504 (1985) (regarding the analogous special parole term...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McClain v. Paxton
...being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. United States Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).Page 7 A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in this Repo......
-
United States v. Tardon
...because Petitioners fail to identify any part of the Report to which they object. (Resp. at 18 (citing Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) ).) The Government further argues that the objection is meritless because Judge Goodman "recites or references relevant port......
-
Rupert v. Johnson, Civil Action No. SA-98-CA-31-OG.
...1219, 1221 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918, 109 S.Ct. 3243, 106 L.Ed.2d 590 (1989). 127. See Battle v. U.S. Parole Commission, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th 128. See generally Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-55, 106 S.Ct. 466, 472-75, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); United States v. Raddatz, 44......
-
Gutierrez v. Thaler, A-06-CA-917-SS
...are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. Battles v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in this Report within four......