TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

John Joseph Miller v. W. H. Hardwick, Warden, the U. S. Board of Parole, the United States of America

John Joseph MILLER, Appellant, v. W. H. HARDWICK, Warden, the U. S. Board of Parole, the United States of America, Et Al., Appellees

Miller v. W. H. Hardwick,, the U. S. Bd. of Parole, 229 F.2d 164 (5th Cir. 1956)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 27, 1956
Docket
No. 15771
Judges
Rives, Tuttle, Cameron
Citations
229 F.2d 1641956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3556

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a judgment denying the writ of habeas corpus and dismissing the petition. The petition alleged that on a six year sentence the petitioner served, with excellent work and conduct reports, from February 1, 1950 to November 20, 1952, when he was released on pai’ole under the provisions of 18 U.S.C.A. § 4203 . On November 18, 1953, he was retaken as a parole violator under the provisions of 18 U.S.C.A. § 4205 . He was given a hearing before a member of the Board of Parole under 18 U.S.C.A. § 4207 . The Board revoked the order of parole for “leaving the district of parole supervision without permission”, and ordered that the prisoner be required to serve the remainder of the term for which he was sentenced. The question is whether in computing the remainder of such tei'm he is entitled to a deduction of the good time allowances under 18 U.S.C.A. § 4161 for the period from February 1, 1950 to November 20, 1952 served before parole. The law seems to be settled that “the credit is not a vested right, but only contingent until a time arrives such that its allowance will end imprisonment.” Aderhold *165 v. Perry, 5 Cir., 59 F.2d 379, 380 . Upon revocation of his parole, appellant could be required to serve the entire remainder of his term without any credit for “earned” good time. Platek v. Aderhold, 5 Cir., 73 F.2d 173 ; Harrell v. Aderhold, 5 Cir., 73 F.2d 189 ; United States ex rel. Rowe v. Nicholson, 4 Cir., 78 F.2d 468 ; Hedrick v. Steele, 8 Cir., 187 F.2d 261 .

The judgment is Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1959: 11961: 11962: 11969: 119592026peak 1959 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
United States ex rel. Rowe v. Nicholson, 78 F.2d 468 (4th Cir. 1935) 56
Platek v. Aderhold, 73 F.2d 173 (5th Cir. 1934) 38
Aderhold v. Perry, 59 F.2d 379 (5th Cir. 1932) 25
Hedrick v. Steele, 187 F.2d 261 (8th Cir. 1951) 20
Harrell v. Aderhold, 73 F.2d 189 (5th Cir. 1934) 7

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list