Court Opinion

ID: 9464742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:41:16.874981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:47.466867
License: Public Domain

HENLEY, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I have given careful consideration to the full and thoughtful opinion of Judge Bright, and I am in agreement with much of what is said in that opinion. I also agree that the order of the district court dismissing appellant’s § 2255 petition without a hearing should be vacated and that the case should be remanded for further proceedings.
However, I reach my conclusion by a somewhat different route from that followed by Judge Bright, and I cannot overlook the severe restrictions that we have placed upon our decision in Kortness v. United States, 514 F.2d 167 (8th Cir. 1975), by our later holdings in such cases as Kills Crow v. United States, 555 F.2d 183 (8th Cir. 1977); Banks v. United States, 553 F.2d 37 (8th Cir. 1977); and United States v. Glinkenbeard, 542 F.2d 59 (8th Cir. 1976). And, of course, I do not overlook the position taken by Judge Stephenson in his dissenting opinion.
Generally speaking, the teaching of the post -Kortness cases that have been mentioned, as I read them, is that an inmate of a federal prison or correctional institution, sentenced originally under what used to be 18 U.S.C. § 4208(a)(2), and who feels aggrieved by the action of the United States Parole Board or Commission in refusing to grant him early parole, may obtain relief in the sentencing court by means of a proceeding commenced pursuant to § 2255 under certain narrowly defined conditions. If those conditions are not met, the sentencing court has no § 2255 jurisdiction, and the inmate must obtain relief, if at all, by means of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which petition must ordinarily be filed in the judicial district wherein the petitioner is physically confined.1
In 1973 a federal convict who was not serving a life sentence or a sentence in excess of forty-five years was automatically eligible for parole consideration at the expiration of one-third of his sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 4202, (1969).2 It may safely be assumed that where a judge imposed a maximum sentence as then provided by § 4208(a)(2), he intended for the Parole Board to give some meaningful consideration to the question of whether or not the individual in question should be granted parole and released from prison prior to the expiration of one-third of his sentence. And I think that “prior” to. the expiration of one-third of the sentence means substantially prior and not just a few hours or a few days.
Where early parole is not granted in a case of this kind, the sentencing court may grant § 2255 relief under Kortness if (1) the sentence was imposed prior to or contemporaneously with the promulgation in November, 1973 of the guidelines that are discussed in considerable detail by Judge Bright, and (2) the Parole Board or Commission failed to consider the defendant’s application for parole within the first one-third of his sentence.
*948As to the second condition, we have held that if what a § 2255 petitioner is actually complaining about is the action of the paroling authority in denying him parole or in the quality or procedural sufficiency of a hearing afforded to him during the first third of his sentence, the petitioner’s remedy is by way of habeas corpus,' and the sentencing court has no § 2255 jurisdiction with respect to the claim for relief.3
However, it seems to me that regardless of the quality and outcome of the hearing, the intention and expectation of the sentencing judge when he imposed the § 4208(a)(2) sentence cannot be realized unless the hearing is held substantially prior to the expiration of the first one-third of the maximum sentence imposed. Even if the paroling authority decides at the hearing that parole should be granted, the decision is essentially meaningless to the inmate within § 4208(a)(2) context if the hearing is not held until immediately before the expiration of the first one-third of the inmate’s sentence.
In other words, in my opinion an eleventh hour hearing by the Board or Commission does not suffice to deprive a sentencing court of its § 2255 jurisdiction, and I think that the hearing that the Commission accorded the appellant Edwards came too late as far as the district court’s jurisdiction was concerned.
The record reflects that while appellant was not sentenced formally until August 9, 1973, he was convicted by the jury on May 18, 1973; it seems to be agreed that shortly after that date, if not before, appellant was confined in jail, and that his sentence of ten years (120 months) began to run. Thus, one-third of appellant’s sentence (40 months ignoring good time) would have expired about September, 1976.
I agree with Judge Bright that the initial hearing afforded appellant by the Board in November, 1973 before the guidelines were even published in the Federal Register did not amount to anything by way of meaningful consideration for early parole. At that hearing appellant’s case wasijscheduled to be heard again in November, 1976 which would have been more than forty months after service of sentence commenced.
In March, 1975 appellant’s hearing was rescheduled for September, 1976 and was actually held in August of that year. Judging from the decision of the Parole Commission, the hearing took place after service of thirty-nine months and thus was held within the fortieth month of appellant’s term.
Administrative routine and procedure being what it is, it is completely unrealistic to suppose that even if the Commission had decided in August, 1976 to parole appellant, he would have been released from prison at any time substantially prior to the expiration of one-third of his ten year sentence. Hence, appellant’s “early release” would have been meaningless from a practical standpoint.4
I do not think that the case can be disposed of properly by reference to the statement of the sentencing judge that since a hearing had been held within the forty month period, the sentencing intentions and expectations of the judge had been met. It occurs to me that the sentencing judge simply may not have considered any question of the timeliness of the Commission’s hearing as far as giving appellant any meaningful relief was concerned.
In my view, the district court had § 2255 jurisdiction of the petition, and upon remand the sentencing judge should give further consideration to the question whether appellant should be resentenced.

. But see Heaney, concurring in Gravink v. United States, 549 F.2d 1152, 1154 (8th Cir. 1977), and Webster, concurring in Lee v. United States, 501 F.2d 494, 502 (8th Cir. 1974).

. Generally speaking, that is still the law. 18 U.S.C. § 4205 (1977). We note that under the former law a life termer or a prisoner serving a sentence of more than forty-five years was eligible for parole consideration after the expiration of fifteen years. Under the present law a prisoner serving a life sentence or a sentence of more than thirty years is eligible for parole consideration after the expiration of ten years.

. Sitting by designation as a district judge in the Eastern District of Arkansas, I recently so held in a § 2255 proceeding commenced by a federal convict whom I had sentenced under § 4208(a) while serving regularly as a United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. United States v. Lacy, E.D.Ark., No. J-73-CR-6. A letter, treated as a notice of appeal, has been filed in the district court, and the case will probably reach this court in due course.

. This case is distinguishable from United States v. Lacy, supra, n.3. In that case the Commission afforded Lacy a hearing several months prior to the expiration of the first one-third of his sentence.