Hayward v. U.S. Parole Com'n, 83-2253
| Decision Date | 01 August 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-2253,83-2253 |
| Citation | 740 F.2d 610 |
| Parties | Donald L. HAYWARD, Appellant, v. U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION and Joseph Petrovsky, Warden, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
James M. Rosenbaum, U.S. Atty., Franklin L. Noel, Asst. U.S. Atty., D. Minn., Minneapolis, Minn., for appellees.
I. Fay Nosow, Dorsey & Whitney, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant Donald L. Hayward.
Before ROSS, McMILLIAN and FAGG, Circuit Judges.
Donald L. Hayward appeals from the district court's 1 denial of his petition for habeas corpus. We affirm.
In 1976 Hayward was convicted of distribution of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1) and sentenced to a seven year term plus a special parole term of three years. In February 1979 Hayward petitioned for habeas corpus relief. The district court granted the petition and on December 8, 1980, ordered that Hayward be released "upon his own recognizance without surety pending the appeal of this matter." Hayward v. United States Parole Commission, 502 F.Supp. 1007, 1013 (D.Minn.1980). On September 18, 1981, this court reversed the district court's order. Hayward v. United States Parole Commission, 659 F.2d 857 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 935, 102 S.Ct. 1991, 72 L.Ed.2d 454 (1982).
On January 3, 1983, Hayward wrote a letter to the district court, which the court treated as a second habeas corpus petition. The district court denied the petition. In a motion for reconsideration, Hayward raised the issue, which is now the sole issue on appeal, whether he should be given credit against his sentence for the time he spent at liberty during his release pending appeal of his 1979 habeas petition. The district court denied the motion for reconsideration.
Hayward argues that his release pending appeal of his habeas petition should be treated as if he had been on parole. Under certain circumstances a parolee whose release is revoked will receive credit for time spent on parole. See 28 C.F.R. Sec. 2.52(c). The Parole Commission, however, argues that Hayward's release pending appeal of his habeas petition is more analogous to that of a prisoner who is free on bail pending direct appeal of his conviction. Time spent by a prisoner on bail pending direct appeal of a conviction is not credited as time spent "in custody" in determining the length of a sentence. See, e.g., Cerrella v. Hanberry, 650 F.2d 606, 607 (5th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1034, 102 S.Ct. 573, 70 L.Ed.2d 478 (1982); United States v. Robles, 563 F.2d 1308, 1309 (9th Cir.1977) (per curiam), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 925, 98 S.Ct. 1491, 55...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tyler v. Houston
...contemplated by a sentence imposed by a Federal court is confinement in fact and not merely in fiction.43 Similarly, in Hayward v. U.S. Parole Com'n,44 the Eighth Circuit also addressed a situation in which a federal prisoner had been released on his own recognizance after the U.S. District......
-
U.S. v. Longo
...is no right under section 3568 to receive credit on a federal sentence for time spent released on bond. Hayward v. United States Parole Commission, 740 F.2d 610 (8th Cir. 1984); United States v. Dovalina, 711 F.2d 737 (5th Cir. 1983); Ortega v. United States, supra; United States v. Hoskow,......
-
Villaume v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
...or after conviction." Ortega v. United States, 510 F.2d 412, 413 (10th Cir.1975) (per curiam). Cf. Hayward v. United States Parole Comm'n, 740 F.2d 610, 611 (8th Cir.1984) (per curiam) (release pending appeal). Second, appellant's reliance upon Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345, 93 S......
-
U.S. v. Arpan, 90-5217
...Arpan was not entitled to credit for time spent on bond pending direct appeal of his conviction. See Hayward v. United States Parole Comm'n, 740 F.2d 610, 611 (8th Cir.1984) (per curiam) (drawing an analogy between release pending appeal of habeas petition and release pending direct appeal,......