Gaskins v. Kennedy, 9863.

Decision Date02 August 1965
Docket NumberNo. 9863.,9863.
Citation350 F.2d 311
PartiesThomas GASKINS, Appellant, v. The Honorable Robert F. KENNEDY, Attorney General, and Kermit A. Weakley, Superintendent, D. C. Reformatory, Lorton, Virginia, Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Harvey B. Cohen, Arlington, Va. (Court-assigned counsel) Tolbert, Lewis & Fitzgerald, Arlington, Va., on brief, for appellant.

MacDougal Rice, Asst. U. S. Atty. (C. V. Spratley, Jr., U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellees.

Before BOREMAN and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, District Judge.

J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judge:

This appeal is from an order of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus without an evidential hearing. The district court entertained the habeas petition filed on June 29, 1964, and required the United States to make a return showing why the writ should not be granted. Thereafter the court, being of the opinion that the petitioner, Thomas Gaskins, was lawfully confined, dismissed the petition.

Gaskins, after having been convicted of violating 21 U.S.C.A. § 174 and 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 4704(a) and 4705(a) (narcotics violations), was sentenced on February 15, 1957, by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to a prison term of nine years. He was confined in the District of Columbia Reformatory at Lorton, Virginia, where his good time allowance was computed under the provisions of 18 U.S.C.A. § 4161. He was conditionally released from Lorton on April 29, 1963, under the provisions of 18 U.S.C.A. § 4164,1 to remain in that status under the general supervision of the District of Columbia Board of Parole hereinafter D.C. Parole Board until the expiration of his sentence on August 18, 1965.

On December 24, 1963, a parole violator warrant was issued for Gaskins' arrest by the D.C. Parole Board pursuant to section 24-205 of the District of Columbia Code hereinafter D.C. Code for alleged violations of the conditions of his release. On December 30, 1963, the warrant was executed, and Gaskins was returned to Lorton where his sentence was recomputed under the appropriate provisions of the D.C. Code, resulting in a mandatory release date of March 29, 1966. On February 20, 1964, the petitioner was given a hearing on the alleged violations of the conditions of his good time release; after this hearing the D.C. Parole Board, acting under section 24-206 of the D.C. Code, entered an order revoking his conditional release. Gaskins then filed the petition involved on this appeal.

Counsel for the petitioner asserts that he is presently illegally confined for three reasons: (1) as one who was convicted of violating a general federal law (as distinguished from a criminal statute of the District of Columbia), he is not subject to the supervision of the D.C. Parole Board, and therefore section 24-206 of the D.C. Code empowering the D.C. Parole Board to revoke a parole release is not applicable to him; (2) as a narcotics violator subject to the mandate of 26 U.S.C.A. § 7237(d), he is not subject to the provisions of the D.C. Code dealing with parole, specifically sections 24-201a through 24-209; and (3) he was denied due process when counsel was not assigned to him as an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Bearden v. State of South Carolina
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • June 10, 1971
    ...to indigent parolees. In so holding, we adhere to our former decisions, Boddie v. Weakley, 356 F.2d 242 (4th Cir. 1966); Gaskins v. Kennedy, 350 F.2d 311 (4th Cir. 1962), and are in accord with the Third, Ninth and Tenth Circuits, Washington v. Hagen, 287 F.2d 332 (3rd Cir. 1960); Williams ......
  • Warren v. Michigan Parole Bd., Docket No. 6418
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • May 26, 1970
    ...in that case had however, waived appointment of counsel and no relief was granted him. Similarly, in Gaskins v. Kennedy (CA 4, 1965), 350 F.2d 311, the Court carefully described its limited holding in Jones v. Rivers, noting the qualifications in the two concurring 18 United States v. Wade ......
  • Guerrero-Guerrero v. Clark, Civ. A. No. 87-1299-AM.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • May 19, 1988
    ...the period of supervision. See Williams v. Ciccone, 293 F.Supp. 271 (W.D.Mo. 1968), aff'd, 415 F.2d 331 (8th Cir.1969); Gaskins v. Kennedy, 350 F.2d 311 (4th Cir.1965) (same application for D.C. 7 Parole is a matter of grace, not entitlement; it is a privilege that may be conditionally gran......
  • Spears v. United States, Civ. A. No. 2297.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • April 6, 1967
    ...likewise denied the existence of the right in parole revocation hearings, Jones v. Rivers et al., 338 F.2d 862 (1964) and Gaskins v. Kennedy et al., 350 F.2d 311 (1965), where the liberty of the parolees was also involved. Likewise, our research has failed to reveal any established rule of ......
  • 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