Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03103/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03103-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Randolph R. McNeal
Appellant
United States Parole Commission
Appellee

Document Text:

, 

' 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

RANDOLPH R. MCNEAL, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

. FlLED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cirruir 

OCT 15 1990 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-3103 

(D. Kan. 90-3018-R) 

UNITED STATES PAROLE 

COMMISSION, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This matter began as a petition for mandamus seeking 

discharge of a parole violator warrant placed as a detainer on 

petitioner. Petitioner sought relief in the form of an order 

requiring the Parole Commission "to conduct a revocation hearing 

and if a violation of parole was found to credit him with time 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-3103 Document: 010110059612 Date Filed: 10/15/1990 Page: 1 
from the date the warrant was executed ... " The district court 

treated this as a petition for habeas corpus. 

The district court dismissed the petition upon a finding that 

the petitioner had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, 

and he appealed. We ordered a response from the United States 

Parole Commission, which was filed in this court on September 11, 

1990. In its brief, the Commission stated that it had reevaluated 

petitioner's case and "that he should be given a revocation 

hearing on the next available docket at the United States 

Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas. The Commission has also 

ordered that the remainder of petitioner's original federal 

sentence (i.e. his parole violator term) should commence to run as 

of January 22, 2986, the date that the parole violator warrant was 

initially executed by the Marshal's Service." 

This appears to afford petitioner all the relief to which he 

may be entitled. Thus, we need not review the petitioner's 

argument that his failure to exhaust administrative remedies 

should be excused because the Commission refused timely to advise 

him of its actions until after the time to seek such relief had 

expired. 

This case is REMANDED with instructions that the district 

court monitor this matter to determine whether the Commission has, 

within 90 days, accorded petitioner a parole revocation hearing 

and, if at such hearing it is determined that petitioner violated 

his parole, whether the Commission ordered the remainder of 

petitioner's original sentence to begin running as of January 22, 

1976, the date the parole violator warrant was executed. Upon 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 90-3103 Document: 010110059612 Date Filed: 10/15/1990 Page: 2 
proof that petitioner has been accorded such a hearing and credit 

against his original sentence since January 22, 1976 if he is 

found to have violated the terms of his parole, the district court 

is ordered to dismiss the petition. If no such relief is accorded 

within 90 days, the district court is requested to hold such 

further hearing as may then be indicated and to enter an order 

further addressing petitioner's claim that he did not exhaust 

administrative remedies because he was not timely advised of the 

actions taken by the Commission. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 90-3103 Document: 010110059612 Date Filed: 10/15/1990 Page: 3