Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Hugh McINTOSH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William WOODWARD and M. Hogan, Respondents-Appellees, 1975 — 514 F.2d 95 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Hugh McINTOSH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William WOODWARD and M. Hogan, Respondents-Appellees
514 F.2d 95·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1975
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Hugh McINTOSH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William WOODWARD and M. Hogan, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 74-3973.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 9, 1975.
Marc A. Rosenberg, Garden City, N.Y., for petitioner-appellant.
J. Robert Cooper, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for respondents-appellees.
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and GEWIN and THORNBERRY, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM:]
PER CURIAM:
McIntosh is incarcerated in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary and on July 26, 1974 was notified that he would be paroled with the release date fixed for August 29, 1974. Presumably on the strong protests of the Joint Task Force on Organized Crime for the Eastern District of New York, the Board of Parole on August 23, 1974 informed McIntosh that a reconsideration would be held by the en banc Board. His counsel was permitted to make an oral statement to the en banc Board, but was then required to leave without participating further. Shortly afterward, the Board announced, with brief statement of its reasons, that McIntosh would not be paroled. McIntosh claims denial of due process procedural rights in the rescinding of the earlier order.
Sexton v. Wise, 5 Cir., 1974, 494 F.2d 1176 directly controls this case. McIntosh argues that the somewhat later Supreme Court opinion in Wolff v. McDonnell, 1974, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935, requires us to overrule Sexton. We disagree, and hold ourselves bound by the panel decision in Sexton.
Affirmed.
. Upon oral argument, McIntosh’s counsel renewed application for bail pending appellate disposition of the case. In light of our action, the motion is denied.