Hyde v. Kennedy

¶4HAMLIN, Circuit Judge.

¶5On January 4, 1954, Eugene N. Hyde, petitioner herein, was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment by the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. On July 5,1955, he was paroled. On June 8, 1960, he was returned to prison as a parole violator and is now confined therein. On July 20, 1961, he applied to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that he was entitled to his release under the good time provisions set out in 18 U.S. C.A. §§ 4161-62-63-65.1

¶6*842The district court denied the writ and petitioner timely appealed to this court which has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291.2

¶7Petitioner contends that under 18 U.S. C.A. § 4161 he was entitled on July 5, 1955, to 126 days good time (18 months times 7), and that under 18 U.S.C.A. § 4162 he was then entitled to 13 days industrial good time. Under his calculation he had served as of July 5, 1955, the date of his parole, 540 days (18 times 30) plus 126 days good time (18 times 7) plus 13 days industrial good time, or a total of 679 days.

¶8 From the date of his return to prison as a parole violator on June 8, 1960, until July 20, 1961, the date of his application for a writ of habeas corpus, a total of 408 days elapsed. If this figure were added to 679 days, which petitioner contends that he was entitled to, the total would equal 1087 days. Inasmuch as his total sentence was four years or 1460 days, it is apparent that petitioner’s application for release was premature at the time the application for writ of habeas corpus was filed.3 This of course does not even take into consideration the provisions of section 4165 which provides for the forfeiture of good time if “a prisoner commits any offense or violates the rules of the institution.”4

¶9The judgment of the district court is affirmed.