*1 INGRAHAM, and WISDOM Before BOOTLE, Judges, District and Circuit Judge. PER CURIAM: Landman, plaintiff-appel- J. Robert against of the Director lant, filed suit Prisons, of Bureau States the United the He attacked A. Carlson. Norman general process and parole in revocation sought him, applied to and as it was damages. was money In Landman 1956 by District States United the sentenced of Cali- District the Northern for Court years upon convic- a five to serve fornia robbery. 18 U.S.C. Under of bank tion mandatory given re- 4163, a he was § 1959, objections, with in lease, over his that days serve. On information to 564 without the district had left Landman charged in Yir- permission had been and 219 *2 or procedures in the statutes as set out rob- two armed ginia with courts state appro- process denied fair that he was issued a beries, of Board Parole the proceedings. priate parole 5, in revocation April mandatory release warrant in the warrant The Board held 1960. We hold that under 18 U.S.C. § developments on the abeyance pending mandatory 4205 the release violator’s charges. May the Win- In 1960 state warrant properly was issued the before Virginia Corporation Court of chester expiration of parole; Landman’s term of years eight im- Landman to sentenced that it was not delay unreasonable to the Penitentiary for prisonment in the State execution of the warrant until the ex County robbery Cir- and the Frederick piration of intervening the incarceration years eight him sentenced to cuit Court of Chaney Landman. Ciccone, See v. 8 consecutively imprisonment with run to 1970, Cir. 363; 427 F.2d Smith, Moore v. sentence. the Winchester 1969, 7 720; Cir. 412 F.2d Watson v. August 31, 1971, Neff, the district court On 1967, 5 Cir. 383 F.2d 397. petition on and dismissed Landman’s We hold that there was un- no 1, 1971, judgment September in entered delay executing upon reasonable the government. Landman of the favor mandatory release violator’s warrant be- court’s motion vacate the then filed a to allowing parole fore a revocation hear- judgment for a order and motion and a ing, especially in the this circumstances change de- of venue. The district court presents: delayed case Landman his Landman, in forma nied both motions. hearing. own See Cotner v. United pauperis, appeals of from the dismissal States, 1969, 10 Cir. 409 F.2d 853. petition his and the denial of his two delaying by the execu- We note that motions. form, “Attorney-Witness” tion of the ap- the of Landman received benefit is holds that there The Court pointed Pub- This was because counsel. any conten to of Landman’s no merit 91-447, lic codified as 18 U.S.C. § Law charges against Landman tions. The 3006A, appointed counsel allows which grounds of for revocation and the the hearings, became effective revocation at mandatory he release obvious: his are Therefore, 11, February it on 1971. felony pleaded and convicted of one was Landman until that date that was not another, guilty dis outside the to both appointed for rev- counsel a could obtain parole supervision. The Pa trict of his February 18, 1971, hearing. On ocation enough Board broad discretion role has “Attorney-Wit- the Landman executed mandatory the revoke a release where to form, indicating he to that wished ness” felonies. releasee stands convicted of two appointed no counsel but witnesses. have Mo In Earnest See 18 U.S.C. 4207. v. § alleges would facts that no 469, Landman 466, 1970, seley, 426 F.2d 10 Cir. attorney’s representation that his show the Court said: proc- inadequate due as to violate was so proceedings . of the Board the ess. revoking parole in the or conditional judgment is The affirmed. presumptively correct. release are clearly the is that Unless it shown REHEARING FOR ON PETITION by procedures Board established the REHEAR- FOR PETITION AND discriminatory clearly so lack- or are EN BANC ING ing de- as in fundamental fairness to PER CURIAM: prive parolee* due releasee of the or process, procedures are or that those Rehearing for is Petition denied The contrary clearly to creat- the statutes Judge panel of nor no member this and ing regulating Board, the and the regular on service the Court in active attempt its court will not to substitute having requested the Court be that judgment for that of the Board. (Rule rehearing banc, polled en 35 on pre- Procedure; Appellate Landman has failed to the overcome of Federal Rules sumption 12) Peti- that the Parole Board acted Rule the Fifth Circuit Local' correctly Rehearing or did not follow the En Banc is denied. that it tion for