Weppner v. US Parole Commission

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-11032
Summary Calendar
ARTHUR F. WEPPNER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
U.S. PAROLE COMM’N,
Respondent-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(4:95-CV-546-A)
- - - - - - - - - -
July 1, 1996
Before JOHNSON, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Arthur F. Weppner appeals the denial of his petition for
habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Weppner
contends: that mandatory releasees are different from parolees
for purposes of revocation of “street time”; that the Parole
Commission may not forfeit “street time” earned by a mandatory
releasee; that the Parole Commission impermissibly lengthened his
sentence in violation of Article III of the Constitution when it
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 95-11032
- 2 -
forfeited his “street time”; and that his Missouri careless-
driving offense was not the type of offense on which the Parole
Commission could base the revocation of “street time.”
We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties
and we find no reversible error regarding whether the Parole
Commission could forfeit a mandatory releasee’s “street time.”
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment on those contentions
essentially for the reasons provided by the district court. See
Weppner v. USPC, No. 4:95-CV-546-A (N.D. Tex. Sep. 28, 1995).
We review Weppner’s contentions, raised for the first time
on appeal, that the Parole Commission violated Article III and
that his offense was not the type allowing for forfeiture of his
“street time” for plain error. See Highlands Ins. Co. v.
National Union Fire Ins. Co., 27 F.3d 1027, 1032 (5th Cir. 1994),
cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 903 (1995). The Commission did not
extend Weppner’s sentence; rather, the Commission forfeited his
street time, as it was entitled to do. Munguia v. USPC, 871 F.2d
517, 521 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 856 (1989).
Weppner’s admission that his careless-driving offense carried a
maximum 90-day jail term dooms his contention that his offense
was not of the type allowing for forfeiture. The statutory
scheme contemplates forfeiture of street time for any offense
punishable by imprisonment. Id.AFFIRMED.