Davis v. Attorney General, 29170. Summary Calendar.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | BELL, AINSWORTH, and GODBOLD, Circuit |
| Citation | 425 F.2d 238 |
| Parties | Ernest C. DAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL of the United States, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 29170. Summary Calendar.,29170. Summary Calendar. |
| Decision Date | 26 May 1970 |
425 F.2d 238 (1970)
Ernest C. DAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL of the United States, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 29170. Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 28, 1970.
Rehearing Denied May 26, 1970.
Ernest C. Davis, pro se.
Allen I. Hirsch, Asst. U. S. Atty., John W. Stokes, Jr., U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Before BELL, AINSWORTH, and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.
BELL Circuit Judge:
This appeal is from the denial of a petition in the nature of mandamus, and also from the denial of a petition for habeas corpus in a separate suit. The cases were consolidated in the district court.1 As to the mandamus action, we affirm in part and reverse in part. We affirm the denial of the habeas petition.
We can quickly dispose of the habeas issue. Appellant was convicted in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. His proper remedy is a motion to vacate judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 filed in the sentencing court. Cachoian v. Blackwell, 5 Cir., 1968, 390 F.2d 654; Waugaman v. United States, 5 Cir., 1964, 331 F.2d 189; Birchfield v. United States, 5 Cir., 1961, 296 F.2d 120.
In connection with the petition in the nature of mandamus, appellant claims credit for 269 days spent in presentence custody in 1958 and 1959. The government has already credited him with 279 days, ten days more than he requested. Thus, this complaint is moot.
It is also contended that credit should be given for 1328 days of earned good time ordered forfeited when the appellant's mandatory release was revoked. Such forfeiture is authorized by the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4207, made applicable to mandatory releases by 18 U.S.C.
§ 4164. Northcutt v. Wilkinson, 5 Cir., 1959, 266 F.2d 2; Buchanan v. Blackwell, 5 Cir., 1967, 372 F.2d 451; Woykovsky v. Chappell, 1964, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 8, 336 F.2d 927Appellant's final contention is that he was entitled to credit on his sentence, for time which he spent in a state jail from October 13, 1967 to May 17, 1968 as time "spent in custody in connection with the offense" within the provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3568. In this regard, appellant alleges that on October 3, 1967 he was arrested on state charges, for which bail was set two days later. He avers that he would have posted bail except that on October 13, 1967 the United States Parole Board placed its mandatory release violation detainer warrant against him, directing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hart v. O'Brien, 96-40151
...a federal official may place a detainer on the detainee, asking the state to hold him for federal authorities. Davis v. Attorney General, 425 F.2d 238, 239 (5th Cir.1970). Presented with a federal detainer, the state may deny the detainee bail, hold him in custody pursuant to state law, and......
-
State v. Carter, 2006AP1811-CR.
...law-enforcement officials as to justify treating the State jail as the practical equivalent of a Federal one. Davis v. Attorney General, [425 F.2d 238 (5th Cir.1970) ]; United States v. Morgan, [425 F.2d 1388 (5th Cir.1970) ]. If the Federal detainer alone prevented Ballard's release from S......
-
US v. Hodge, CR83-183A.
...by habeas corpus, see, e.g., Soyka v. Alldredge, 481 F.2d 303, 304-05 (3d Cir. 1973), or by mandamus, see Davis v. Attorney General, 425 F.2d 238 (5th Cir.1970). However, there are limitations upon a court's jurisdiction to exercise such First, the prisoner must exhaust his administrative r......
-
Peterson v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Services
...prevents release from State custody (United States v. Shillingford, supra, p. 375, n; Davis v. Attorney General of the United States, 425 F.2d 238 [5th Cir.1970]; Brown v. United States, 311 F.Supp. 325). "Or, to state it affirmatively, if absent the Federal detainer and under available sta......
-
State v. Carter, No. 2006AP1811-CR.
...law-enforcement officials as to justify treating the State jail as the practical equivalent of a Federal one. Davis v. Attorney General, [425 F.2d 238 (5th Cir.1970) ]; United States v. Morgan, [425 F.2d 1388 (5th Cir.1970) ]. If the Federal detainer alone prevented Ballard's release from S......
-
Hart v. O'Brien, No. 96-40151
...a federal official may place a detainer on the detainee, asking the state to hold him for federal authorities. Davis v. Attorney General, 425 F.2d 238, 239 (5th Cir.1970). Presented with a federal detainer, the state may deny the detainee bail, hold him in custody pursuant to state law, and......
-
US v. Hodge, No. CR83-183A.
...by habeas corpus, see, e.g., Soyka v. Alldredge, 481 F.2d 303, 304-05 (3d Cir. 1973), or by mandamus, see Davis v. Attorney General, 425 F.2d 238 (5th Cir.1970). However, there are limitations upon a court's jurisdiction to exercise such First, the prisoner must exhaust his administrative r......
-
Harkins v. Lauf, No. 58995
...with the offense or acts Page 476 for which the federal sentence was imposed. The court of appeals, citing Davis v. Attorney General, 425 F.2d 238, 240 (5th Cir. 1970), held that Brown was entitled to credit for time in state custody because he could not obtain release on bail by state auth......