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
Emory Newton Brown, Appellant, v. J. O. Kearney, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta,georgia and Richard A. Chappell, Chairman, U.s.board of Parole, Appellees
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. - 355 F.2d 199
Jan. 28, 1966
Emory Newton Brown, Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.
Thomas K. McWhorter, Asst. U.S. Atty., Charles L. Goodson, U.S. Atty., for appellees.
Before GEWIN and BELL, Circuit Judges, and HUGHES, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court denying appellant's petition for habeas corpus. Appellant contends in his petition that the revocation of his conditional release from the United States penitentiary was based solely on evidence obtained by an illegal search and seizure.
While a parolee is entitled to constitutional protection from illegal search and seizure, it is not necessary for us to pass on this question in reaching our decision.
Parole is a matter of grace, not of right, and the revoking of parole is within the sound discretion of the Parole Board. Excluding the evidence obtained by the search and seizure, the record shows there were ample grounds upon which to base the decision of the Parole Board and there was no abuse of its discretion in revoking the parole of petitioner.
The order of the United States District Court in denying appellant's petition for habeas corpus is therefore affirmed.