HAYWOOD WILLIAMS, JR., PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 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.
A federal convict must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial review for loss of good time.
Appellant, a federal convict, alleged he was deprived of good time without a hearing. The district court found he was present at a hearing where forfe…
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 Exhaustion Of Administrative Remedies cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is taken from an order of the district court denying the petition of a federal convict for the writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.1
Appellant alleges that he has been deprived of 75 days of his accumulated good time without being given a hearing. The district court found from the record that appellant was present at a hearing before the good time forfeiture board, resulting in the board recommending forfeiture of good time. The record reflects that this is correct.
Appellant does not indicate that he has applied to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons for a recommendation to restore his good time. Before a prisoner can avail himself of judicial review for loss of good time, he must first exhaust his administrative remedies. 18 U.S.C. § 4166. Gilchrist v. United States, 5th Cir. 1970, 429 F. 2d 1132 [No. 29456, June 17, 1970]; Lynch v. United States, 5th Cir. 1969, 414 F. 2d 281; Smoake v. Willingham, 10th Cir. 1966, 359 F. 2d 386. The judgment below is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s local Rule 9(c) (2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 5th Cir. 1969, 412 F. 2d 981.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Norwood E. Jones and William Scott Winans v. Carlson, 495 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1974)
-
Ledesma v. United States, 445 F.2d 1323 (5th Cir. 1971)
-
Seawell v. Warden W. H. Rauch, 536 F.2d 1283 (9th Cir. 1976)
Authorities Cited
- Kimbrough v. Beto, 412 F.2d 981 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Smoake v. Willingham, 359 F.2d 386 (10th Cir. 1966)
- Lynch v. United States, 414 F.2d 281 (5th Cir. 1969)