United States District Court, D. Columbia
November 2, 2005.
JAMES SLATER, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: REGGIE WALTON, District Judge
By Order of August 25, 2005, petitioner was advised to respond
to respondent's opposition to his petition for a writ of habeas
corpus by September 27, 2005. He was further advised that if he
did not respond within the time provided, the Court would treat
respondent's assertions as conceded and dismiss the case.
Petitioner has neither responded to the opposition nor sought
additional time to do so. In any event, respondent asserts
correctly that the relief sought, i.e., the restoration of
street-time credit rescinded upon petitioner's parole revocation,
is not available. It is well established that District of
Columbia prisoners have neither a constitutional nor a statutory
right to the restoration of street-time credit once their parole
is revoked. See Jones v. Bureau of Prisons, 2002 WL 31189792,
*1 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (denying certificate of appealability)
(citing Davis v. Moore, 772 A.2d 204, 214-15 (D.C. 2001);
United States Parole Commission v. Noble, 693 A.2d 1084, 1085
(D.C. 1997), aff'd on reh'g, 711 A.2d 85 (1998) (en banc)). To
the contrary, District of Columbia law requires the rescission of street-time credit under such circumstances. D.C. Code §
24-406(a); see Noble, 693 A.2d at 1094-1104 (interpreting §
24-206(a) on certification of question from the District of
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.