James J. Canavari v. G. v. Richardson

Appellant, a federal prisoner, takes this appeal from the denial of his petition for habeas corpus. He urges that the time he spent “in custody” but on parole must count as time served on his three year sentence.

As explained by the trial judge who heard the petition:

Such a legal' position is specifically contrary to congressional enactment. 18 U.S.C. § 4205 :

This court has rejected appellant’s contention in Chandler v. Johnson, 133 F.2d 139, 142 (9th Cir. 1943), and Van Buskirk v. Wilkinson, 216 F.2d 735 (9th Cir. 1954).

These cases not only reject appellant’s contention — they also uphold the constitutionality of the statutory release on parole procedure quoted above. It is only when congressional enactment transcends constitutional limitations, such as the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, enactment of ex post facto laws, and the like, that such statutes can be held unconstitutional.

We affirm what we said in Van Buskirk, supra:

Other courts, in an unbroken line of cases, have come to the same conclusion and have rejected appellant’s claim. We know of no cases to the contrary.

Appellant’s reliance on Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 242-243 , 83 S. Ct. 373…