Battle v. U.S. Parole Com'n, 86-2960

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
Citation834 F.2d 419
Docket NumberNo. 86-2960,86-2960
PartiesBobby BATTLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Respondents-Appellees. Summary Calendar.
Decision Date10 July 1987

Page 419

834 F.2d 419
Bobby BATTLE, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 86-2960
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
July 10, 1987.

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
2847 cases
  • McClain v. Paxton
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Texas
    • May 16, 2019
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • October 8, 2020
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Texas
    • July 8, 1999
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Texas
    • May 19, 2011
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT