Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/303/103/457783/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 00:20:08+00:00

Document:
Burke Marshall, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., Cecil F. Poole, U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., Harold H. Greene, Gerald P. Choppin, Attorneys, Dept. Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Dario DeBenedictic, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee Edwards.
David Van Hoesen, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee Ragan.
Before BARNES and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges, and ROSS, District Judge.
These cases, although not consolidated, were considered and decided together by the trial court, and we do likewise. Each is an appeal from an order granting a writ of habeas corpus. In our view, each order was correct.
When his petition was filed, Edwards was in the United States Penitentiary at Alcatraz, serving three consecutive sentences imposed by Army Courts-martial, totalling 11 years and 8 months. These sentences were imposed after the effective date of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, May 31, 1951. The full term of these sentences was to expire on April 13, 1963. According to appellant's computations of "good time", after deducting "good time" forfeited, Edwards' release date was October 9, 1961. According to Edwards' computations, his release date was May 9, 1961. His petition was filed on June 7, 1961.
Ragan, too, was in Alcatraz when his petition was filed. He was an Air Force private, serving a ten-year sentence imposed by an Air Force general court-martial. This sentence was likewise imposed after the effective date of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The full term of this sentence was to expire on November 27, 1962. According to appellant's computations of "good time", and after deducting "good time" forfeited, Ragan's release date was August 31, 1961. According to Ragan's computations, his release date was October 24, 1960. We think his computation may be in error, and that the date, accepting his figures, would appear to be December 13, 1960. However, the parties make no point of this, because his petition was filed March 8, 1961.
Basically, the same question is involved in each case; how is "good time" computed to determine the release dates of these prisoners? The government (the Warden of Alcatraz) makes two contentions: 1. That 18 U.S.C. § 4161, rather than the Army or Air Force regulations, applies, because these prisoners were in Alcatraz, and 2. That the method of computation used by the trial court gives the prisoners double good time credits for part of their period of confinement.
"Ten days for each month, if the sentence is ten years or more."
The brackets indicate language deleted in 1959 (73 Stat. 546).
The applicable Department of Defense, Army and Air Force Regulations were issued under 5 U.S.C.A. § 22 and 10 U.S.C. § 858(a) (formerly 50 U.S.C. § 639(a)) (See Edwards v. Madigan, 9 Cir., 1960, 281 F.2d 73, 77).
Defense Department Instruction Number 1325.4 was issued January 24, 1955, and is entitled "Uniform Policies and Procedures Affecting Military Prisoners and Places of Confinement". Under heading "III. POLICY A., General Policy", it is stated: "It is considered desirable that persons under sentence of courts-martial or other military tribunals be accorded uniform treatment, in keeping with the principles of unification and in justice to the individual. In the implementation of these uniform policies, the respective services will adopt the administrative procedures hereinafter set forth * * *."
"Ten days for each month of the sentence, if the sentence is ten years or more.
"(2) In order to predetermine release dates, a prisoner may be credited at the beginning of his sentence to confinement with the regular good conduct time that can be earned in his case during the entire period of his sentence".
"a. Good conduct time. If, during the term of imprisonment, a prisoner violates the rules * * * or commits any offense, all or part of his earned good conduct time may be forfeited."
There is also a provision for withholding good conduct allowances in the month in which the violation occurs.
"It is the purpose of the following provisions to provide uniform execution of sentences adjudged by the courts-martial * * *.
"6. Computation of sentences. Procedures employed in the computation of sentences will be in conformity with those published by the Department of Justice, which govern computation of sentences of federal prisoners and military prisoners under the jurisdiction of that Department."
"6. Abatement. a. Good Conduct Time.
"(1) Abatement of sentence for good conduct will be credited according to the rates authorized in sections II and III.
"c. Abatement earned and credited while in Federal custody.
"(2) Sentences adjudged on or after 31 May 1951.
"(a) The rate of earning abatement of sentence for good conduct is the same for prisoners confined in military and Federal penal or correctional institutions.
"7. Forfeiture of abatements. a. Good conduct abatement.
"(1) If * * * a prisoner violates the rules * * * all or any part of the good conduct time which has been earned * * * may be forfeited * * *.
"(2) * * * care will be taken not to impose a forfeiture in excess of the amount of good conduct time that has actually been earned at the date of the forfeiture.
"(9) To determine the amount of good conduct time which may be forfeited, the rates prescribed in sections II and III will be used".
"e. For each month spent in confinement, 14.8 days if the sentence, other than for life, is 10 years or more.
"f. * * * If the computation of the total amount of good conduct time earned is for purposes other than forfeiture, the fraction of a day will be increased to the next whole number of days."
A number of examples are given, but they shed no light upon our problem.
Still later, and on September 2, 1956, the Air Force came out with its Air Force Manual No. 125-2. It "impleplements" the Department of Defense Instruction that we have previously quoted, "In keeping with the spirit and principles of unification." Its provisions, however, are slightly different from those of AR 633-30, quoted above. Ours "not to reason why".
"5. For each month spent in confinement, 14.8 days if the sentence is more than 10 years * * *."
Again, the examples given shed no light on our problem.
"5. Monthly Rate for Forfeiting and Withholding Good Time.
"Ten years or more: 14.8 days per month."
"* * * the amount of forfeiture shall not exceed the amount earned. This will be computed in accordance with instructions in paragraph 5."
It says nothing about military prisoners.
"It will be noted that the allowances are the same as those provided by Title 18, U.S.C., Section 4161, except for sentences of 1 year and less than 6 months. For sentences adjudged on or after 31 May 1951, good time will be allowed at the military rate, on the entire sentence, for all military prisoners committed to federal custody, regardless of the type of confinement originally designated.
"Good Time Forfeiture and Restoration.
"As heretofore, forfeiture of good time will be limited to the amount earned at the time the offense is committed * * *."
"This change also applies, in principle, to Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine, and Coast Guard prisoners * * *. In computing good time subject to forfeiture or withholding in the case of military prisoners * * * the rates per month of sentence promulgated by the Department of Defense * * * will be used."
Finally, there is Manual Bulletin No. 489, November 19, 1959, dealing with the 1959 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 4161. This sheds no light on our problem.
The second problem, how is "good time" to be computed under the military regulations, is more difficult. It will be observed that there are two methods of computing good time. One of these is 10 days for each month. The military regulations call it an "abatement" (Defense Dept. Inst. 1325.4, heading III. O., supra) to be "credited" monthly (Ibid, III. O. 1.a. (1)); AR 633-30 uses similar language (Sec. I. 6.a. (1) and III.15.). So does the Air Force manual. The practice of the Department of Justice, until Hunter v. Facchine, supra, was decided, was the same as that of the military, i. e., to "credit" the full amount of good time (in this case months of sentence × 10 days) upon the sentence at the beginning of the term, thus establishing a "minimum release date". (Defense Dept. Inst. 1325.4, supra, III. O. 1.a. (2); AR 633-30, supra, I. 6.a. (3); 2 U.S. Code Cong. & Adm. News 1959, p. 2519).
The other method is 14.8 days for each month served. This is not provided for in 18 U.S.C. § 4161, but is provided for in the military regulations, where it is referred to as a rate of "earning" good time (AR 633-30, supra, 1.7.a. (1) and (2), III. 16.e., f.; Air Force Manual 125-2, supra). It is also provided for in Manual Bulletin No. 259, supra, Par. 5. and Manual Bulletin No. 379, supra — again being referred to as "earned".
The 10-day and 14.8-day rates are interrelated. This can be shown by applying them to the case of appellee Ragan. His sentence began November 28, 1952, and ends (maximum term) November 27, 1962. Abating his sentence, at the beginning of his term, at the 10-day rate (10 years × 12 months × 10 days = 1200 days deducted from the end of the term) gives a "minimum release date" of August 14, 1959, and a minimum term of approximately 80.6 months. If he earns good time for each of those 80.6 months at 14.8 days, he will have earned almost 1200 days on the minimum release date. (The computation does not work out precisely because 14.8 is not carried beyond the first decimal).
The question is, does he still earn good time at the rate of 14.8 days per month of confinement if, by reason of forfeiture, he must serve beyond the minimum release date? The only suggestion in any regulation cited to us, that he does not, is in Air Force Manual 125-2, supra, which, when setting up the 14.8 day per month rate, states that it is "for purposes of forfeiture". All other regulations, including the Manual Bulletins of the Bureau of Prisoners, speak of good time "earned", without restriction. The court below held, and we agree, that good time is earned on forfeited time actually served, and at the 14.8 day per month rate, subject, of course, to either forfeiture or withholding for disciplinary reasons, in accordance with the regulations.
To us, this is what the regulations intend, and we are further impelled to this conclusion by the view that the regulations should be construed in a way most favorable to the prisoner. We see nothing unfair or anomalous in this result. It gives the prisoner an incentive toward good behavior while he is serving forfeited time, and the prison authorities are not deprived of disciplinary authority because they can still, in proper cases, withhold or forfeit such good time.

References: § 4161
 § 22
 § 858
 § 639
 v. 
 § 4161
 v. 
 § 4161