Court Opinion

ID: 989275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:04:39.9032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:22.031123
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ALLEN RAY JOHNSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,

v.                                                                    No. 95-6806

UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,
Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Chief District Judge.
(CA-94-414-5-F)

Submitted: April 30, 1996

Decided: May 14, 1996

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Brenton D. Adams, Dunn, North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice
McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Eileen C. Moore, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Allen Ray Johnson appeals from the district court's order denying
relief on his habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(1988). This court has granted Appellee's motion to submit the case
on the briefs. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Johnson received a twelve-year federal sentence for theft from an
interstate shipment. After serving four years in prison, the United
States Parole Commission ("Commission") paroled Johnson. But
when Johnson violated his parole, the Commission issued a warrant
charging him with two parole violations--leaving the district of
supervision without permission and violating the Racketeer Influ-
enced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), for which he
received an eleven-year federal sentence. The Commission lodged the
parole warrant as a detainer against Johnson.

The Commission then conducted a hearing on March 12, 1986,
after which it revoked Johnson's parole, gave him no credit for the
time spent on parole, and ordered him to serve the unexpired portion
of his original federal sentence after he served the eleven-year sen-
tence for the RICO violation. Johnson completed the RICO sentence
on June 5, 1994, and the parole warrant was executed.

Johnson filed his § 2241 petition, claiming that the Commission
executed the parole warrant on March 12, 1986, the date on which the
Commission conducted its hearing. Based on a March 12 warrant exe-
cution date, Johnson asserted that he had served his entire prison term
because the remainder of his original federal sentence ran concur-
rently with the RICO sentence. The district court rejected Johnson's
claim, and this appeal followed.

Contrary to Johnson's assertion, the Commission did not execute
the parole warrant on March 12, 1986. The Commission is authorized
to conduct a combined hearing to address the parole revocation and
the initial hearing on the new federal sentence before the execution
of the warrant. See 28 C.F.R. § 2.47(b)(i) (1995). At the end of the

                    2
hearing, the Commission specifically ordered the unexpired portion of
Johnson's original federal sentence to commence upon completion of
the new sentence on the RICO violation. See Moody v. Daggett, 429
U.S. 78 (1976); 28 C.F.R. § 2.47(e)(2) (1995). Johnson completed
service on the RICO sentence on June 5, 1994, and the warrant was
executed at that time. Johnson is therefore properly serving the
remainder of his original federal sentence. Because we find that the
district court properly denied relief on Johnson's claim, we affirm.

AFFIRMED

                   3