Hauck v. Hiatt, 8518.
| Decision Date | 08 March 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 8518.,8518. |
| Citation | 141 F.2d 812 |
| Parties | HAUCK v. HIATT, Warden. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Appellant for himself.
Herman F. Reich, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Lewisburg, Pa., for appellees.
Before BIGGS, GOODRICH, and McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judges.
The appellant, confined to the United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, asserting that he is entitled to his liberty because the United States Parole Board refused to grant him a parole at the expiration of one-third of a sentence imposed upon him by the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of South Carolina. The District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed his petition for the reasons stated in its opinion. See 50 F.Supp. 917.
The appellant makes three assertions. He contends, first, that he has complied fully with all prison regulations and therefore is entitled to a parole; second, he asserts that he is entitled to a "Military Parole" because after a physical examination he was placed in Class 1-A and his application was referred to the Parole Board. He contends, third, that one Robert Brewer, his co-defendant and a fellow inmate, has made an affidavit absolving the appellant of the commission of the crime for which he was convicted and that for this reason, if for no other, he should be given his liberty.
The functions and duties imposed upon the Parole Board are described and defined by statute. See 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 714 and 716. Language expressive of legislative intent could not be plainer. It has been held repeatedly that the paroling authority in passing upon a prisoner's application for parole exercises a discretionary power and that a writ of habeas corpus is not available to secure relief from its decisions. Goldsmith v. Aderholt, 5 Cir., 44 F.2d 166, certiorari denied 282 U.S. 901, 51 S.Ct. 215, 75 L.Ed. 794; Redman v. Duehay, 9 Cir., 246 F. 283; Cardigan v. White, Acting Warden, 8 Cir., 18 F.2d 572, certiorari denied 274 U.S. 755, 47 S.Ct. 770, 71 L.Ed. 1334; United States ex rel. Anderson v. Anderson, 8 Cir., 76 F.2d 375; Story v. Rives, 68 App.D.C. 325, 97 F.2d 182; Bass v. Hiatt, D.C., 50 F.Supp. 420 and Walton v. Hiatt, D.C., 50 F.Supp. 690.
As to the last ground asserted by the appellant, if he can demonstrate his innocence, his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lebron v. UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF AIR FORCE
...cases, however, hold that such confessions do not of themselves justify a new trial, even if believed. See, e. g., Hauck v. Hiatt, 141 F.2d 812, 813 (3rd Cir. 1944), stating in such a situation that "if petitioner can demonstrate his innocence, his application should be to the President of ......
-
United States v. Kaplan
...1 Cir., 23 F.2d 327, certiorari denied 277 U.S. 574, 48 S.Ct. 530, 72 L.Ed. 995; McGuire v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 138 F.2d 379; Hauck v. Hiatt, 3 Cir., 141 F.2d 812. 20 Reid v. United States, 5 Cir., 149 F. 2d 334; Spaulding v. United States, 6 Cir., 155 F.2d 919; Meredith v. United States, 6 Ci......
-
State v. Cerny
...This might be urged as the proper subject for executive clemency, but it affords no basis for judicial action.' See also Hauck v. Hiatt, 3 Cir., 141 F.2d 812; McGuire v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 138 F.2d 379, 381; Id., 988 U.S. 710, 64 S.Ct. 1053, 88 L.Ed. 1553; United States v. Kaplan, D.C., 101 F......
-
Clark v. United States, Civ. A. No. 73-1038.
...and his sole remaining recourse for relief because of "newly" discovered evidence is an appeal to executive clemency. Cf. Hauck v. Hiatt, 141 F.2d 812 (3rd Cir. 1944). Moreover, even if petitioner's motion was timely and could be considered under Rule 33, Fed.R.Crim.P., the "newly" discover......