EARNEST GALLOWAY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL, 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 the appellant's contention regarding the delay of his parole revocation hearing is without merit.
Appellant is serving a federal sentence and sought relief from a parole violator's warrant to be executed upon completion of his current sentence. He …
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 Parole Violator Warrant cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The appellant is presently serving a sentence for conviction of a federal offense allegedly committed while he was on parole from a prior federal sentence. He has sought relief from the parole violator’s warrant which the Parole Board intends to execute upon expiration of his present sentence.
Appellant contended that it is improper for the Parole Board to delay his revocation hearing until expiration of the later sentence. As the district court held, there is clearly no merit to this contention. Cox v. Feld-Kamp, 5th Cir. 1971, 438 F. 2d 1, and cases there cited.
In his reply brief, the appellant alleges that the parole violator’s warrant actually was executed on April 1, 1971, without according him the hearing required by 18 U.S.C. § 4207. We note that this allegation is refuted by an affidavit of a prison official, which is in the record. This affidavit, sworn to on May 14, 1971, states that the appellant “will be afforded a revocation hearing before the first Parole Board meeting after the warrant has been executed.” (Emphasis supplied.) We pretermit decision of this point, however, since it never has been presented to the district court for ruling. Hemming v. United States, 5th Cir. 1969, 409 F. 2d 11, 12.
The order appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cook v. United States Attorney General, 488 F.2d 667 (5th Cir. 1974)
-
Moultrie v. State OF Ga., 464 F.2d 551 (5th Cir. 1972)
-
Gray v. Sigler, 532 F.2d 1008 (5th Cir. 1976)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Alva Eugene Hemming, III v. United States, 409 F.2d 11 (5th Cir. 1969)
- A. E. Staley Mfg. Co. v. Porto RICO Lighterage Co. & The TUG Catano, 438 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1971)