Sabil M. Mujahid v. Charles A. Daniels, Warden

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that habeas petitioner who has not completed period of supervised release is still in federal custody
• holding that the interim rule “plainly violated the APA” notice and comment requirements
• holding appeal not moot despite intervening release of inmate into supervised release because court could reduce period of supervised release
• reiterating previously recognized principle that “a prisoner who wrongfully serves excess prison time is not entitled to an automatic reduction in his term of supervised release.”
• reviewing a challenge to the alleged deprivation of good time credit under Section 2241
• “[A] habeas petitioner remains in the custody of the United States while on supervised release.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).