Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

391 F.2d 710

Docket No. 308, Docket 31947.

Castillo v. United States

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted Jan. 25, 1968.

Decided March 11, 1968.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1968-03-11

2 counsel of record

Relies on Fanchon & Marco, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. · Machibroda v. United States · United States v. Mississippi

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1968-03-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 1997

6 federal appellate · 1 district ·

501968197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Louis N. Forman, New York City, for relator-appellant.

¶2Jack Kaplan and Pierre N. Leval, Asst. U. S. Attys., and Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., for the Southern District of New York, New York City, on the brief, for respondent-appellee.

¶3Before MEDINA, MOORE and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

¶4MEDINA, Circuit Judge:

¶5Franklin Castillo appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Mansfield, J., which denied his application to set aside a sentence imposed upon *711him as a parole violator. On April 27, 1962, appellant was convicted of violating 21 U.S.C. Sections 173, 174, and sentenced to a mandatory term of imprisonment of five years. After being given a mandatory release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 4163 on October 7, 1965, appellant was arrested again on September 13, 1966 and charged by New York State authorities with possession of narcotics and a hypodermic needle. A parole violation warrant was. issued by the United States Board of Parole on October 10, 1966 but was not executed until April 28, 1967. During the interim period appellant was acquitted in a New York State court on the charge of possessing narcotics but convicted of possessing a hypodermic needle and sentenced to six months imprisonment. Following appellant’s release from a New York State prison on January 11, 1967, he, by his own admission, “travelled to all parts of the country including … Puerto Rico.” On July 12, 1967, appellant’s mandatory release was revoked and he was ordered to serve the remainder of his original five year sentence.

¶6 On this appeal appellant contends that the parole violation warrant was defective since it was not executed within a reasonable time or within the time required by 18 U.S.C. Section 4164.1 However, Judge Mansfield correctly held that the delay in execution of the warrant was reasonable, as appellant has admitted his widespread travels following his release from prison. Moreover, 18 U.S.C. Section 4164 contains no express requirement relating to the time in which a warrant must be executed. That section must be read in conjunction with 18 U.S.C. Section 4205,2 see Buchanan v. Blackwell, 372 F.2d 451 (5th Cir. 1967); Taylor v. Godwin, 284 F.2d 116 (10th Cir. 1960), cert. denied 365 U.S. 850, 81 S.Ct. 814, 5 L.Ed.2d 814 (1961), which merely requires that a warrant be issued within an appropriate time period and makes no mention of execution. See Avellino v. United States, 330 F.2d 490 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 379 U.S. 922, 85 S.Ct. 280, 13 L.Ed.2d 336 (1964). In the instant case, the warrant, issued on October 10, 1966, was valid since it was obtained prior to the expiration of both appellant’s “maximum term,” 18 U.S.C. Section 4205, and his “maximum term … less one hundred and eighty days,” 18 U.S.C. Section 4164.3

¶7Affirmed.

/391/f2d/710 · .json · Public domain