Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MARSHALL v. HIATT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


September 15, 1947

MARSHALL
v.
HIATT, Warden

The opinion of the court was delivered by: FOLLMER

The petitioner, Charles C. Marshall, was on March 3, 1943, in the United States District Court for the District of Montana, sentenced for a violation of the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 408, to a term of three years. While at the Federal Correctional Institution at Englewood, Colorado, under this sentence, he was again indicted in the Colorado District on a charge of resisting and interfering with a Federal officer at that Institution. On this charge he was sentenced in the Colorado District to a term of two years consecutive to the other sentence. He was later transferred to the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri, and was on December 4, 1946, conditionally released on parole under the provisions of 18 U.S.C.A. § 716b. *fn1" While thus on parole he was adjudged a conditional release parole violator by the Parole Board, was arrested and committed to the District of Columbia jail on March 3, 1947, and on March 13, 1947, transferred for further commitment to the United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, for the balance of the two sentences totalling five years. *fn2"

His contention is that his parole should not have been revoked because his conduct while on conditional release was due to the use of narcotics *fn3" and he seeks to have this Court direct that he be released for the balance of his good time. *fn4"

 The petitioner does not deny that a violation of his parole occurred but seeks to justify his actions on the ground that he was a narcotic addict. *fn5"

 The Parole Board under such circumstances had jurisdiction and the revocation of the parole was within the discretionary power of the Parole Board. Habeas corpus does not lie to interfere with the exercise of that discretion by the Board.

 The Statutes created a parole system applicable to conditional releasees as well as other parolees under which they take their releases and paroles subject to the contingency of being arrested and returned on warrant issued by the Parole Board, or a member thereof, and subject to a determination by the Board as to whether the terms of such parole have been violated. *fn6"

  The petition for writ of habeas corpus is accordingly denied and the rule to show cause dismissed.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.