Guida v. Nelson, 851
| Decision Date | 20 June 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 851,D,851 |
| Citation | 603 F.2d 261 |
| Parties | Charles GUIDA, Appellant, v. W. Raymond NELSON, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Danbury, Connecticut, Appellee. Cal.ocket 78-2102. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Diana Garfield, Asst. U. S. Atty. for the District of Connecticut, New Haven, Conn. (Richard Blumenthal, U. S. Atty., Dist. of
Connecticut, New Haven, Conn., of counsel), for appellee.
Charles Guida, pro se.
Before LUMBARD, FEINBERG and OAKES, Circuit Judges.
Charles Guida, pro se, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institute in Danbury, Connecticut, appeals from an order entered by Judge T. F. Gilroy Daly in the District of Connecticut on August 18, 1978 denying appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Guida claims that the United States Parole Commission improperly issued and executed a mandatory release violator warrant. Finding that appellant has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, we affirm.
On March 1, 1967, Guida was sentenced in the Southern District of New York to an eight-year term of imprisonment for bank robbery and conspiracy to commit bank robbery. On May 19, 1972, with 950 days remaining on his sentence, Guida was mandatorily released pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4164. By the terms of the statute, if Guida refrained from further criminal activity, this probationary "as if on parole" release was to become permanent on June 28, 1974.
In May, 1974, however, Guida was arrested on a state bribery charge and on federal and state drug charges. Consequently, the U. S. Board of Parole, now the Parole Commission, on June 6, 1974 issued a mandatory release violator's warrant. Action on the warrant was delayed pending disposition of the charges against Guida.
Guida pled guilty to both the state bribery charge and the federal drug charge (the state drug charge was dismissed), receiving a "time-served" sentence on the bribery charge but a five-year sentence on the federal drug charge. Subsequently, the Parole Board lodged its still unexecuted violator warrant with federal prison officials as a detainer, to ensure that Guida would not be released from custody until the Parole Board could assess Guida's apparent parole violation and make a parole revocation determination.
Guida's sentence on the drug charge expired on October 2, 1977. Though Guida was kept in custody pursuant to the violator warrant, the warrant remained unexecuted until January 12, 1978. Apparently because the Parole Board itself was not informed of the warrant's execution until January 12, 1978, Guida did not receive a parole revocation hearing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanchez v. Miller
...(1986); Brice v. Day, 604 F.2d 664 (10th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1086, 100 S.Ct. 1045, 62 L.Ed.2d 772 (1980); Guida v. Nelson, 603 F.2d 261 (2d Cir.1979); United States ex rel. Sanders v. Arnold, 535 F.2d 848 (3d Cir.1976); Hardwick v. Ault, 517 F.2d 295 (5th Cir.1975); Willis v. ......
-
Masselli v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COM'N, 85 Civ. 7873 (CSH).
...exhaust available administrative remedies before seeking habeas corpus relief in the district courts. See, e.g., Guida v. Nelson, 603 F.2d 261, 262 (2d Cir.1979) (per curiam); Miller v. Quinlan, 564 F.Supp. 802, 804 (S.D.N.Y.1983); Payton v. Thomas, 486 F.Supp. 64, 70 (S.D.N. Y.1980). Sever......
-
Reisman v. United States
...(concluding that the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires "proper exhaustion" as meant in administrative law); Guida v. Nelson, 603 F.2d 261, 262 (2d Cir. 1979) (per curiam) (holding that a petitioner must exhaust administrative remedies before pursuing a claim in federal habeas court). He......
-
U.S. v. Lara
...must exhaust administrative remedies prior to seeking habeas corpus relief from a federal court. See, e.g., Guida v. Nelson, 603 F.2d 261, 262 (2d Cir.1979) (per curiam). We think this argument misplaced. There is no requirement--statutory or judicial--that a defendant exhaust administrativ......