United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 25, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-40953
Summary Calendar
DELMAN WESLEY BALL
Petitioner - Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION
Respondent - Appellee
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:05-CV-231
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Delman Wesley Ball, former federal prisoner # 36780-118,
appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241
habeas petition. Ball argued that he was entitled to federal
sentencing credit for time he spent on the street between his
release from a state sentence on December 29, 2004, and his
arrest on a federal parole violator’s warrant on June 15, 2005.
In 1983, Ball was convicted of bank robbery in federal
district court in Maryland and was sentenced to 22 years in
prison. He was paroled from this sentence in November 2002 with
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 06-40953
-2-
781 days to be served on his federal sentence. Ball was taken
into custody in 2003 and was convicted in 2004 of a Texas state
offense. In May 2003, the Parole Commission issued a parole
violator’s warrant for Ball’s arrest.
Ball has not established that the Parole Commission’s
refusal to credit his federal sentence with “street” time between
his release from state prison and his arrest on the federal
violator’s warrant was “‘flagrant, unwarranted, or
unauthorized.’” Van Etten v. United States Parole Comm’n, 96
F.3d 144, 145 (5th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). Under
28 C.F.R. § 2.44(d), the issuance of the violator’s warrant in
2003 “operate[d] to bar the expiration of [Ball’s federal]
sentence.” Under 28 C.F.R. § 2.52(c)(2), Ball’s conviction of
the new state offense resulted in a “forfeiture of time from the
date of [his] release [from his federal sentence] to the date of
execution of the [violator’s] warrant.”
Ball also argues that the Parole Commission violated his due
process rights by denying him the review options under 28 C.F.R.
§ 2.47(c). The record, however, reflects that the Commission
chose, as permitted by § 2.47(c)(3), to “[l]et the detainer stand
and order further review” when Ball returned to federal custody.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.