Singleton v. Looney, 4955.
| Decision Date | 03 January 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 4955.,4955. |
| Citation | 218 F.2d 526 |
| Parties | Clifford L. SINGLETON, Appellant, v. Chesley H. LOONEY, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Eugene D. Faus, Denver, Colo., for appellant.
Milton P. Beach, Asst. U. S. Atty., Oskaloosa, Kan. (William C. Farmer, U. S. Atty., Wichita, Kan., and Selby S. Soward, Asst. U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan., on the brief), for appellee.
Before HUXMAN, MURRAH and PICKETT, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order discharging an application for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the validity of petitioner's custody under a conditional release violator's warrant.
Substantially undisputed facts reveal that Appellant was committed on June 27, 1946, to the District of Columbia Reformatory for a term of from eighteen months to five years for violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 415.1 On October 11, 1949, having served the maximum sentence imposed, less statutory good time deductions, he was conditionally released with 623 days of the maximum sentence unserved.
When Appellant was asked to sign the certificate of good time release preparatory to his conditional release, he notified the Board of Parole by letter that he did not voluntarily consent to the imposition of the conditions of release, except as they were within the purview of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution; that he did not consent to the interruption of the orderly process of his sentence; and that he did not agree to the conditions of his release under which he would be required to serve the remainder of his sentence upon violation of his release without credit for the time during which he was conditionally released.
The Board of Parole acknowledged this protest but advised Appellant that the Board would apply the same conditions to his release as in all other good-time release cases.
On March 23, 1951, the District of Columbia Board of Parole, upon information that Appellant had violated the terms of his conditional release, issued a warrant for his arrest. Thereafter, on December 28, 1951, Appellant was committed to the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, for two years and six months on other offenses. When he had completed serving this sentence, he was immediately arrested under the Parole Board warrant and remanded to the custody of the Appellee on November 26, 1953, to serve the unexpired sentence of 623 days on the first commitment.
Appellant contests the constitutionality of his incarceration asserting that not having consented to the conditions of his release he is not bound thereby and must therefore be given credit for the time during which he was at liberty on parole. He denies the constitutional power of the Parole Board to deny him statutory credit under protest.
We agree with the trial court's conclusion that under applicable law Appellant must serve the 623 days remaining on his maximum original sentence without diminution upon violation of the conditions of his release; and that the pertinent statutes establishing the authority of the Board of Parole to incarcerate Appellant are constitutional.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States ex rel. Ostin v. WARDEN, FED. DET. HDQTRS., NY
...v. United States, 293 F.Supp. 1186, 1187 (S.D.N.Y.1968). 2 Welch v. Taylor, 292 F.2d 481, 482 (10th Cir. 1961); Singleton v. Looney, 218 F.2d 526, 528 (10th Cir. 1955); Hicks v. Reid, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 109, 194 F.2d 327, 329, cert. denied, 344 U.S. 840, 73 S.Ct. 51, 97 L.Ed. 653 (1952); Smith......
-
United States ex rel. Williams v. Fitzpatrick
...F.2d 451, 452 (5th Cir. 1967). 5 18 U.S.C. §§ 4164, 4165, 4207; Welch v. Taylor, 292 F.2d 481, 482 (10th Cir. 1961); Singleton v. Looney, 218 F.2d 526, 528 (10th Cir. 1955); Hicks v. Reid, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 109, 194 F.2d 327, 329, cert. denied, 344 U.S. 840, 73 S.Ct. 51, 97 L.Ed. 653 (1952); ......
-
Sargis v. United States Board of Parole, 74-751 C (1).
...are as mandatory as the release, and the acceptance or dissent of the prisoner does not affect their imposition. See Singleton v. Looney, 218 F.2d 526 (10th Cir. 1955). After the conditional release under Section 4163, the prisoner has the status of a parolee for the maximum duration of his......
-
DeSimone v. Norton, Civ. No. B-75-90.
...curtail an inmate's term of imprisonment and to prescribe the perimeters and conditions for such curtailment. Cf. Singleton v. Looney, 218 F.2d 526, 527-528 (10 Cir. 1955). See also McGinnis v. Royster, Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. ...