HENRY FORD SWICEGOOD, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION AND WARDEN RISON, F.C.I., TALLADEGA, ALABAMA, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES
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 petitioner was not denied due process because he forfeited any good time credits due to parole violations, rendering the delay in sentence aggregation harmless.
The petitioner received multiple sentences, including one for escape, and was paroled multiple times, violating parole each time. The Bureau of Prison…
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 Good Time Credits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
In addition to two five year sentences imposed in 1973, to be served concurrently, petitioner Swicegood, in January 1974, received an additional three year sentence for escape, 18 U.S.C. § 751, to be served consecutively. Due to an oversight, the escape sentence was not aggregated by the Bureau of Prisons until 1978, although it was retroactively implemented as though imposed in January, 1974.
Between 1975 and 1979 petitioner was paroled three times. Each time he violated the parole and parole was revoked, the last revocation being August, 1982. In October, 1982, he received an eighteen month sentence to run concurrently with his other sentences.
In a petition for habeas corpus petitioner complains that he was denied due process by the failure of the Bureau of Prisons to timely aggregate the § 751 sentence. The district court denied habeas corpus relief. We affirm.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 4161, consecutive federal sentences must be aggregated. Here the Bureau of Prisons, through oversight, failed to aggregate petitioner’s escape sentence until four years after imposition. Upon discovery of its error, however, the Bureau corrected Swicegood’s records retroactively to January, 1974. Petitioner claims the delay in aggregation caused him to lose good time credits. Petitioner, however, because of his parole violation, forfeited any good time credit for time served prior to revocation. See Trimmings v. Henderson, 498 F. 2d 86 (5th Cir.1974);1 Henning v. Bureau of Prisons, 472 F. 2d 1221 (5th Cir.1973) (By violating parole a prisoner forfeits all credit of good conduct time accumulated prior to release and all credit for time on parole.).
Accordingly, the denial of habeas corpus relief is AFFIRMED.
. The Eleventh Circuit, in the en banc decision Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F. 2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981), adopted as precedent decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crofton v. State, 491 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…Joinder of defendants for trial is proper where an indictment charges multiple defendants with participation in a single conspiracy and some, but not all, defendants are charged with substantive counts arising out of the conspiracy. U.S. v. Alvarez, 755 F. 2d 880, 837 (11th Cir.1985); U.S. v. Walker, 720 F. 2d 1527, 1533 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1108, 104 S.Ct. 1614, 80 L.Ed.2d 143 (1984). The inherent nature of the crime necessitates a single trial for co-conspirators. Rule 3.150(b)(2), Fla.R…
-
United States v. Campa, 529 F.3d 980 (11th Cir. 2008)…and specifically instructed the jury to disregard the improper statements. These alleged incidents of government misconduct ‘were so minor that they could not possibly have affected the outcome of the trial.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Alvarez, 755 F. 2d 880, 859 (11th Cir.1985)). Because our en banc Court expressly decided this issue, we will not reconsider it. See Hester v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, 941 F. 2d 1574, 1581 n. 9 (11th Cir.1991). Our en banc decision also resolved any issue of w…
-
United States v. Norris Mothersill, 87 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 1996)…e meritless and we affirm them without discussion. We affirm. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW The scope of our review is limited since the application of the Pinkerton doctrine to the facts of a case lies within the jury’s domain. United States v. Alvarez, 755 F. 2d 880, 848 (11th Cir.1985). Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613, 618, 69 S.Ct. 766, 769, 93 L.Ed. 919 (1949). In determining whether the trial court was correct in submitting the Pinkerton issue to the jury, we must ascertain “whether the eviden…
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
- Bonner v. City OF Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981)
- Henning v. United States Bureau OF Prisons, 472 F.2d 1221 (5th Cir. 1973)
- Gunie Boyd Trimmings v. Henderson, 498 F.2d 86 (5th Cir. 1974)