Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01322/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01322-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

ABBAS 

v . 

U.S. 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

Unit.ed States Court of Appeals •r,i,nt:J,,. ~i~nit 

FEB 05 1988 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

HASSAIN, ) Clerk 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

) 

) 

PAROLE COMMISSION, ) 

) 

Respondent-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

No. 87-1322 

(D.C. No. 86-2772-BT) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.l.8(c) and 

27. 1 .2. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral 

argument. 

Petitioner appeals from an order of the district court 

dismissing his petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 u.s.c. § 2241. For the reasons set forth below we affirm. 

Petitioner was paroled from a five-year sentence on 

December 7, 1979. On October 8, 1980, the United States Parole 

Commi ssion issued a violator's warrant charging petitioner with 

t wo separate parole violations. On April 13, 1981, petitioner was 

Appellate Case: 87-1322 Document: 010110025191 Date Filed: 02/05/1988 Page: 1 
convicted of a new offense unrelated to the parole violations and 

sentenced to ten years imprisonment. After petitioner's 

incarceration, the United States Parole Commission issued a 

supplement to the 1980 warrant adding the new conviction. 

On May 5, 1982, a hearing was held by the Parole Commission 

at which joint consideration was given to parole revocation and an 

initial parole determination with regard to the new ten-year 

sentence. 

his parole. 

was set to 

At the hearing, petitioner was found to have violated 

Petitioner's parole was revoked and the violator term 

commence upon the petitioner's release by parole or 

mandatory release from his new sentence. 

The essence of petitioner's request for federal habeas relief 

is that his parole term must be construed as running concurrent to 

the term on his new sentence because the revocation of his parole 

at a hearing prior to the expiration of the intervening sentence 

operates to execute the parole violator's warrant. 

While somewhat imaginative, this argument is unfounded. 18 

U.S.C. § 4210(b)(2) specifically provides that the Parole 

Commission had authority to order that the unexpired portion of 

the original federal sentence would be served consecutively to 

petitioner's new federal sentence. See United States v. Newton, 

698 F.2d 770 (5th Cir. 1983). Conducting a revocation hearing and 

revoking parole as to a parolee while he is incarcerated on an 

intervening sentence does not execute a violator's warrant and 

make both sentences concurrent. Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 91 

n.4 (1976) (Stevens, J. dissenting). Execution of the violator's 

warrant can be delayed until completion of the intervening 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-1322 Document: 010110025191 Date Filed: 02/05/1988 Page: 2 
sentence. See ~ ... ! .... 9 ... !.-' Berg v. United States Parole Comm., 735 F.2d 

378, 379 (9th Cir. 1984); Newton, 698 F.2d at 771; Doyle v. Elsea, 

658 F.2d 512, 517 (7th Cir. 1981). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 87-1322 Document: 010110025191 Date Filed: 02/05/1988 Page: 3