John D. Clark, Jr. v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden
John D. CLARK, Jr., Appellant, v. Olin G. BLACKWELL, Warden, Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was released on parole with 1,475 days remaining to be served on a federal sentence. He was later taken into custody on a parole violator warrant and returned to a federal penitentiary to serve the remainder of his sentence. There was a delay in executing the warrant because appellant was serving an intervening state sentence. He claims credit on his federal sentence for the time spent on parole. His view is that he was in custody while on parole, citing Jones v. Cunningham, 1963, 371 U.S. 236 , 83 S.Ct. 373 , 9 L.Ed.2d 285 . That case .stands for the proposition that a prisoner is at least sufficiently in custody while on parole to support a petition for the writ of habeas corpus.
The situation here is different. 18 U.S.C.A. § 4205 controls and provides that the time spent on parole shall not diminish the sentence where a prisoner has violated his parole and is required to serve the remainder of his sentence. See Smith v. Blackwell, Warden, 5 Cir., 1966, 367 F.2d 539 ; and cf. Buchanan v. Blackwell, Warden, 5 Cir., 372 F.2d 451 .
There is also no merit in the further contentions that federal jurisdiction was lost by surrender of custody to the state to serve the intervening sentence, or that appellant was deprived of due process by the ensuing delay in executing the warrant.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 18 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Roberto Rodriguez v. Florida Parole Commission
- James C. Cooks v. U. S. Board of Parole, Washington, D. C.
- James C. Cooks v. U.S. Board of Parole, Washington, D.C., No. 30859 Summary Calendar
- Hebert, Mark v. State of Florida
- James Edward Garnett v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden, United States Penitentiary
- Richard T. Lynch v. United States
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.