Williams v. United States
Decision Date | 03 June 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 71 Civ. 2047.,71 Civ. 2047. |
Citation | 327 F. Supp. 986 |
Parties | Daniel WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Daniel Williams, pro se.
Whitney North Seymour, Jr., U. S. Atty., New York City, for respondent; W. Cullen MacDonald, Asst. U. S. Atty., of counsel.
Petitioner, now confined to the Federal Correctional Institution at Danbury, Connecticut, for treatment and supervision pursuant to the provisions of Title II of the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966, 18 U.S.C. §§ 4251-4255, seeks to be resentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 659, under which he was convicted upon his plea of guilty. Following the entry of his guilty plea, he was committed under the Act for examination to determine whether he was an addict and likely to be rehabilitated through treatment. Thereafter, the court was advised that he was an addict and likely to be rehabilitated through a treatment program. The court thereupon entered a judgment under which he was committed for treatment, which provided he was to be confined for an indefinite period not to exceed ten years until released by the United States Board of Parole, as provided for by § 4254 of Title 18. Since his commitment on January 9, 1969 three release or parole hearings have been held and denied on each occasion; a further progress report is now scheduled for June 1971.
Petitioner, in seeking resentence under the statute under which he was found guilty, contends that the three parole continuances, totalling two years' confinement beyond the six-month minimum period provided for in § 4254 of Title 18, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment—that the statute contemplates parole for the purpose of treatment in the community after a period of six months. Petitioner misconceives the statute and its purpose. Title II of the Act is clear upon its face. Its purpose is to provide for treatment and rehabilitation of narcotics addicts convicted of offenses against the United States. It provides for their commitment and treatment for a minimum of six months and a maximum of ten years. The House Report on the Act, in commenting on Title II, which governs post-conviction procedures, states: H.R.Rep. No. 1486, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. 12 (1966), U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News, p. 4252.
The original report to this court indicated that defendant's treatment needs fall within the areas of improving his educational level, developing some marketable skill and developing the motivation for and qualities necessary to pull himself out of the addict culture." Whether or not he has reached the point in treatment so that he may be released on parole is left to the judgment of the Parole Board. This determination rests upon each individual's progress, his response to treatment, his medical prognosis and his conduct while under treatment. In short, the determination as to whether he has sufficiently responded to treatment and so is ready for conditional...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. ex rel. Johnson v. Chairman of New York State Bd. of Parole
...of Parole, 362 F.Supp. 338, 340 (M.D.Pa.1973); Bradford v. Weinstein, 357 F.Supp. 1127, 1131 (E.D.N.C.1973); Williams v. United States, 327 F.Supp. 986, 987 (S.D.N.Y.1971); Witt v. Arizona ex rel. Eyman, 18 Ariz.App. 120, 500 P.2d 905 ...
-
Wiley v. United States Board of Parole
...Board of Paroles and Pardons, M.D.Pa.1973, 362 F.Supp. 338; Bradford v. Weinstein, E. D.N.C.1973, 357 F.Supp. 1127; Williams v. United States, S.D.N.Y.1971, 327 F.Supp. 986; with United States ex rel. Johnson v. Chairman of New York State Board of Parole, 2 Cir. 1974, 500 F.2d 925; King v. ......
-
Mulky v. United States
...sentence limited only by a prescribed minimum of six months of treatment. 18 U.S.C. § 4254 (1976); see Williams v. United States, 327 F.Supp. 986, 987 (S.D.N.Y.1971). "The uniform course of decisions concerning the length of confinement on a NARA sentence is to the effect that if the crime ......
-
Cummings v. Regan
...due process rights attaching to New York's parole release procedure (Menechino v. Oswald, 2 Cir., 430 F.2d 403; see Williams v. United States, S.D.N.Y., 327 F.Supp. 986). However, in 1971 the New Jersey Supreme Court prerogatively required that jurisdiction's parole board to supply inmates ......