Henry Ford Swicegood v. U.S. Parole Comm'n & Warden Rison, F.C.I., Talladega, Alabama, 755 F.2d 880 (11th Cir. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Henry Ford Swicegood v. U.S. Parole Comm'n & Warden Rison, F.C.I., Talladega, Alabama, 755 F.2d 880 (11th Cir. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“petitioner, however, because of his parole violation, forfeited any good time credit for time served prior to revocation.”
12 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hebert, Mark v. State of Florida (flsd, 2024-03-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Hebert, Mark v. State of Florida
S.D. Fla. · 2024 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
petitioner, however, because of his parole violation, forfeited any good time credit for time served prior to revocation.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Campa
11th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
These alleged incidents of government misconduct ‘were so minor that they could not possibly have affected the outcome of the trial.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Alvarez, 755 F.2d 880, 859 (11th Cir.1985)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Mothersill (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
11th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
United States v. Alvarez, 755 F.2d 880, 848 (11th Cir.1985).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Roberto Rodriguez v. Florida Parole Commission
11th Cir. · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Moreover, our predecessor court has rejected the argument that it violates due process principles to require a parole violator to serve the remaining time on his sentence, even if that causes the prisoner’s “incarceration [to extend] past the final expiration of the maximum sentence as established at the time of imposition.” Sturgis v. United States, 419 F.2d 390, 390 (5th Cir.1969); see also Swicegood v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 755 F.2d 880, 881 (11th Cir.1985) (noting that parole violation results in forfeiture of good time credit and credit for time spent on parole).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Henry Ford SWICEGOOD, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION and Warden Rison, F.C.I., Talladega, Alabama, Respondents-Appellees
84-7506.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Mar 20, 1985.
755 F.2d 880
Frank W. Donaldson, U.S. Atty., Jack W. Selden, Asst. U.S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., for respondents-appellees.
Godbold, Krav-Itch, Hatchett.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

In addition to two five year sentences imposed in 1973, to be served concurrently, petitioner Swicegood, in January 1974, received an additional three year sentence for escape, 18 U.S.C. § 751, to be served consecutively. Due to an oversight, the escape sentence was not aggregated by the Bureau of Prisons until 1978, although it was retroactively implemented as though imposed in January, 1974.

Between 1975 and 1979 petitioner was paroled three times. Each time he violated the parole and parole was revoked, the last revocation being August, 1982. In October, 1982, he received an eighteen month sentence to run concurrently with his other sentences.

In a petition for habeas corpus petitioner complains that he was denied due process by the failure of the Bureau of Prisons to timely aggregate the § 751 sentence. The district court denied habeas corpus relief. We affirm.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 4161, consecutive federal sentences must be aggregated. Here the Bureau of Prisons, through oversight, failed to aggregate petitioner’s escape sentence until four years after imposition. Upon discovery of its error, however, the Bureau corrected Swicegood’s records retroactively to January, 1974. Petitioner claims the delay in aggregation caused him to lose good time credits. Petitioner, however, because of his parole violation, forfeited any good time credit for time served prior to revocation. See Trimmings v. Henderson, 498 F.2d 86 (5th Cir.1974); [1] Henning v. Bureau of Prisons, 472 F.2d 1221 (5th Cir.1973) (By violating parole a prisoner forfeits all credit of good conduct time accumulated prior to release and all credit for time on parole.).

Accordingly, the denial of habeas corpus relief is AFFIRMED.

1

. The Eleventh Circuit, in the en banc decision Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981), adopted as precedent decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981.