Case Resources
Search this Case
in
Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN
Web Search
Yahoo!
Web Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google
News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google
Blog Search
Technorati
Blog Search
in other Databases
Google
Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Paul Courter Holland, Appellant, v. Clarence T. Gladden, Warden, Oregon State Penitentiary, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. - 338 F.2d 52
November 2, 1964
Paul Courter Holland, in pro. per.
Robert Y. Thornton, Atty. Gen. of Or., C. L. Marsters, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Or., Salem, Or., for appellee.
Before CHAMBERS, MERRILL and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Paul Holland wants out from the Oregon State Penitentiary, where he is presently confined under a twenty-year sentence for rape, and a five-year sentence for burglary. By this, and other actions, he has challenged the validity of his confinement. Federal relief has uniformly been denied on the ground that, in any event, he is validly confined under the five-year sentence, which he concededly has never attacked. See McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131, 55 S.Ct. 24, 79 L.Ed. 238 (1934).
He now seeks an order directing the state court to expunge the record of his conviction on the rape charge. But even if such power exists, relief would depend on Holland's showing that he is presently entitled to his liberty, a showing he has never made. He contends, however, that accumulated good-time credit, coupled with time actually served, has satisfied the valid five-year sentence under the provisions of ORS 421.120. This is mere argument, totally unsupported by anything in the record. Having failed to demonstrate any basis for the relief he requests, we must dismiss his petition without consideration of whether we possess the power Holland would have us invoke.
The district court's judgment is affirmed.