James Henry Meador, Jr. v. Joel Knowles

Good Law
93 Daily Journal DAR 4457·990 F.2d 503·1993 WL 101914·1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 7287·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2601
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 8, 199391-16048California1,601 words

Opinion

Opinion

Brunetti, J.

James Henry Meador, Jr. (“Meador”) petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that (1) the United States Parole Commission (“the Commission”) erred by not notifying him prior to his 1982 parole revocation hearing that his “street time” (time spent on parole) was subject to forfeiture and (2) the Commission erred by failing to pursue the 1988 DUI conviction in a timely manner and thereafter relying on it to issue the parole violation warrant in 1989. The district court refused to grant the writ.

On appeal, Meador argues that he was denied due process in the 1990 revocation hearing because there was a delay of fifteen months between his conviction and the issuance of the parole violation warrant. Meador also argues that based on Ninth Circuit law, he did not receive proper notification prior to his 1982 parole revocation hearing that a possible consequence of the hearing would be forfeiture of his street time. Meador insists that Ninth Circuit law, not Tenth Circuit law, should be applied to determine the validity of his 1982 parole revocation hearing since he was sentenced in the Ninth Circuit and is currently serving his sentence in the Ninth Circuit. We…

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.