Briest v. United States Bureau of Prisons

4 Citing cases

  1. Callan v. State

    904 P.2d 856 (Alaska Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 8 times
    Noting that "it appears strained (at best) to suggest that AS 33.20 should be construed to place a prisoner on ‘parole’ at the same time that he or she is actually imprisoned and serving another sentence"

    Morton v. Hammond, 604 P.2d 1, 2 (Alaska 1979); see former 18 U.S.C. § 4161-66; AS 33.20.030 AS 33.20.040. Federal decisions interpreting the federal statutes support the state's method of calculating good time, which is based on calculating good time for the composite sentence for all of the prisoner's convictions. See McCray v. United States Board of Parole, 542 F.2d 558, 560 (10th Cir. 1976); Briest v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 459 F.2d 284 (8th Cir. 1972). In McCray, the court stated:

  2. Bell v. Putman

    548 F.2d 749 (8th Cir. 1977)   Cited 4 times

    In the federal penal system, good time operates to reduce the length of a prisoner's incarceration; it does not accelerate the termination of post-release supervision for a parolee or a prisoner who has reached his mandatory release date. See 18 U.S.C. § 4164 and 4203 (1969), as amended, 18 U.S.C. § 4210; Briest v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 459 F.2d 284 (8th Cir. 1972). Accordingly, Bell's claim is without merit.

  3. McCray v. United States Bd. of Parole

    542 F.2d 558 (10th Cir. 1976)   Cited 5 times

    See Brown v. Kearney, 302 F.2d 22 (5th Cir. 1962); and United States ex rel. Klein v. Kenton, 327 F.2d 229 (2nd Cir. 1964). As was succinctly opined by Judge Breitenstein in Briest v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 459 F.2d 284 (8th Cir. 1972): "When consecutive sentences are treated as a single term the prisoner benefits because he receives the maximum rate of good time credit on his sentences.

  4. Schoffner v. United States Bd. of Parole

    416 F. Supp. 759 (M.D. Pa. 1976)   Cited 2 times

    Under the applicable law, 18 U.S.C. § 4161, Bureau of Prisons Policy Statement 7600.54A, and the case law interpreting such, prison officials aggregate multiple sentences. Trimmings v. Henderson, 498 F.2d 86 (5th Cir. 1974); Briest v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 459 F.2d 284 (8th Cir. 1972); McFarland v. United States, 408 F.2d 376 (5th Cir. 1969); Desmond v. U.S. Board of Parole, 397 F.2d 386 (1st Cir. 1968); Gregory v. United States, 297 F.2d 80 (10th Cir. 1961). The purpose of such aggregation is to allow inmates the benefit of accumulating statutory good time at the highest possible rate.