Richard Paul Elliott v. United States

Good Law
572 F.2d 238·1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12166
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 15, 197876-2283California349 words

Opinion

Opinion

Elliott is serving a 65-year sentence for kidnapping and escape. In 1969, the trial court modified his sentence so that he would serve it under former 18 U.S.C. § 4208 (a)(2) (current 18 U.S.C. § 4205 (b)(2)), which allows the Parole Board to release a prisoner on parole before he completes a specific period in custody. In 1976, Elliott filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 a motion to vacate or correct the sentence. The sentencing court denied the motion, and Elliott appeals. We affirm.

Elliott claims on appeal that the sentencing judge and the Parole Board relied to his detriment upon false information that he had also been convicted of rape. He did not make his claim in the district court that the sentencing judge relied on false information. This claim, therefore, is not properly before us.

If Elliott desires to challenge the Parole Board’s reliance upon inaccurate information, he should make his claim in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2242 and 2243. Billiteri v. United States Board of Parole, 541 F.2d 938 (2d Cir. 1976). A motion to vacate or correct a sentence is not the appropriate remedy.

Elliott also asserts that the Parole Board is not giving serious…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.