ARTHUR GILCHRIST, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT-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 a federal prisoner must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial review for forfeited good time and that prison discipline for rule violations does not constitute double jeopardy when combined with a criminal prosecution for the same acts.
A federal prisoner sought a writ of habeas corpus, alleging deprivation of good time without cause and double jeopardy. The prisoner was serving a sen…
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 Exhaustion Of Administrative Remedies cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1133] PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing.
This appeal is taken from an order of the district court denying the petition of a federal convict for the writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.
In his habeas corpus petition in the court below appellant contended (1) that he has been deprived of 113 days of his accumulated good time without just cause, and (2) that he has been placed in double jeopardy by the filing of a criminal indictment for the same act for which his good time was forfeited.
Appellant is presently sei'ving a three and one-half year sentence for violating Title 18 U.S.C.A., § 495(2), uttering a United States Treasury check with forged endorsement.
There is no indication in the record that appellant had appealed the forfeiture of good time to the Attorney General. Before a prisoner can avail himself of judicial review for loss of good time, he must first exhaust his administrative remedies by applying to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons for a recommendation to restore his forfeited good time, which is subject to being restored by the Attorney General on that recommendation, 18 U.S.C.A., § 4166. Smoake v. Willingham, 10 Cir., 1966, 359 F. 2d 386; Lloyd v. Heritage, 199 F.Supp. 46, N.D.Ga., 1961; Lynch v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969, 414 F. 2d 281.
As to appellant’s second contention, the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment is not violated because a prisoner is subjected to discipline by prison authorities for violating prison regulations and is also prosecuted in the district court in a criminal action based upon the same acts. United States v. Cordova, 5 Cir., 1969, 414 F. 2d 277; Keaveny v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969, 405 F. 2d 821; Rush v. United States, 5 Cir., 1961, 290 F. 2d 709; Mullican v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 252 F. 2d 398.
The judgment of the district court is Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sadler v. State, 333 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
-
State v. Jones, 230 So. 3d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
-
Hutchison v. United States, 450 F.2d 930 (10th Cir. 1971)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mullican v. United States, 252 F.2d 398 (5th Cir. 1958)
- Smoake v. Willingham, 359 F.2d 386 (10th Cir. 1966)
- Keaveny v. United States, 405 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Rush v. United States, 290 F.2d 709 (5th Cir. 1961)
- United States v. Cordova, 414 F.2d 277 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Lynch v. United States, 414 F.2d 281 (5th Cir. 1969)