Klinkner v. Squier, 10744.
| Decision Date | 11 August 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 10744.,10744. |
| Citation | 144 F.2d 490 |
| Parties | KLINKNER v. SQUIER, Warden. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Peter H. Klinker, in pro. per., for appellant.
J. Charles Dennis, U. S. Atty., of Seattle, Wash., and Guy A. B. Dovell, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Tacoma, Wash., for appellee.
Before DENMAN, STEPHENS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is from a judgment adverse to appellant on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Following are the conceded facts of the case: On July 29, 1930, appellant was convicted of a federal offense and sentenced to serve a ten-year term. On August 23, 1935, he was paroled from the institution of his confinement under the provisions of 18 U.S.C.A. § 716. By the terms of the parole he was to remain under supervision until April 15, 1937 — the expiration date of his minimum term after deduction of credit for good conduct, if earned. On June 1, 1937, he received from the Supervisor of Paroles a letter stating:
This letter was written under a misapprehension, as will now appear.
On December 1, 1936, while at large under parole, appellant had committed the crime of forgery in violation of 18 U.S.C. A. § 347. For this crime he was indicted May 13, 1937; and on May 21, 1937, on his plea of guilty, he was sentenced to serve a term of five years. On the same date he was sentenced under another indictment, charging the stealing of letters from mail boxes, and was sentenced to serve four years, the sentence to run consecutively to the one imposed for the crime of forgery. He completed the service of these consecutive sentences February 7, 1944. Subsequent to May 21, 1937, and prior to the expiration of his maximum term under the original sentence of July 29, 1930, a warrant charging violation of his parole was issued. Pursuant to this warrant he was taken into custody upon completion of the nine-year intervening sentences and is now confined under the 1930 sentence.
The petition is predicated on the letter of the Supervisor, or perhaps on the assumed action of the parole authorities which inspired the writing of it. Appellant says the action or letter, whether or not induced by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henrique v. United States Marshal
...from supervision, the commission was not foreclosed from changing its position once the true situation became known. Klinkner v. Squier, 144 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1944). 7 In Frye v. Moran, 302 F.Supp. 1291 (W.D. Tex.1969) petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus based upon a letter from......
-
Nave v. Bell, 10908.
...release prior to the expiration of his maximum sentence. This court held that the writ was properly denied. Cf. Klinkner v. Squier, Warden, 9 Cir., 144 F.2d 490; Welch v. Hillis, Marshal, D.C., 53 F.Supp. 456; United States ex rel. Gutterson v. Thompson, D.C., 47 F. Supp. 150, affirmed 2 Ci......
-
Henrique v. U.S. Marshal
...in determining when the running of a sentence is tolled. Schiffman v. Wilkinson, 216 F.2d 589, 591 (9th Cir. 1954); Klinkner v. Squier, 144 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1944). The Government argues, in addition, that the Commission's mechanism for dealing with absconders does not contemplate a f......
-
Lockwood v. Rhodes
...by United States ex rel. Anderson v. Anderson, 8 Cir., 76 F.2d 375. Compare Jarman v. United States, 4 Cir., 92 F.2d 309; Klinkner v. Squier, 9 Cir., 144 F.2d 490. The petitioner relies mainly upon Anderson v. Williams, 8 Cir., 279 F. 822, and Crooks v. Sanders, 123 S.C. 28, 115 S.E. 760, 2......