GUY B. NORTHCUTT, APPELLANT,
v.
F. T. WILKINSON, WARDEN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the appellant's forfeited good time, when added to the days he was prematurely released, correctly calculated the remaining sentence, thus denying his habeas corpus petition.
Appellant, a conditional release violator, sought habeas corpus, claiming his sentence was exceeded. He had violated his conditional release and forfe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Writ Of Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Northcutt, is a conditional release violator who was retaken into custody. 18 U.S.C.A. § 4161. He complains that the district court erred in denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus based on the contention that he is being held for a period exceeding his sentence.
By violating his conditional release, Northcutt forfeited his statutory good time of 1,792 days. 18 U.S.C.A. § 4207. Appellant was prematurely released by 1,864 days. This number of days plus the forfeited statutory good time total 3,656 days left for petitioner to serve. The formula in arriving at the period in which a prisoner is eligible for release from federal custody is as follows:
The actual time served plus good time earned (statutory good time plus industrial or extra good time) should equal the entire sentence imposed on the prisoner. Wooten v. Wilkinson, 5 Cir., 1959, 265 F. 2d 211; Hunter v. Facchine, 10 Cir., 1952, 195 F. 2d 1007. Credit for industrial or extra good time is given under the same terms and conditions as commutation of time for good conduct, and is forfeited in the same manner. 18 U.S.C.A. § 4162; Hockaday v. United States, 4 Cir., 1957, 248 F. 2d 950, 951; Wipf v. King, 8 Cir., 1942, 131 F. 2d 33; Bragg v. Huff, 4 Cir., 1941, 118 F. 2d 1006.
The judgment is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. Attorney General of the United States, 425 F.2d 238 (5th Cir. 1970)
-
Mock v. U. S. Bd. OF Parole, 345 F.2d 737 (D.C. Cir. 1965)
-
Howard v. United States, 274 F.2d 100 (8th Cir. 1960)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bragg v. Huff, 118 F.2d 1006 (4th Cir. 1941)
- Wipf v. King, 131 F.2d 33 (8th Cir. 1942)
- Hunter v. Facchine, 195 F.2d 1007 (10th Cir. 1952)
- Reubin Wooten v. Wilkinson, 265 F.2d 211 (5th Cir. 1959)
- Hockaday v. United States, 248 F.2d 950 (4th Cir. 1957)