Costello v. Ramsey, 10791.

• Decision Date: 19 March 1937
• Docket Number: No. 10791.,10791.
• Citation: 88 F.2d 622
• Parties: COSTELLO v. RAMSEY, Divisional Director of Immigration and Naturalization.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

88 F.2d 622 (1937)

COSTELLO v. RAMSEY, Divisional Director of Immigration and Naturalization.^*

No. 10791.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

March 19, 1937.

Charles A. Lich, of St. Louis, Mo. (Claudio Delitala, of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for appellant.

Harry C. Blanton, U. S. Atty., of Sikeston, Mo. (Herbert H. Freer, Asst. U. S. Atty., of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for appellee.

Before SANBORN and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and MUNGER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying the appellant's application for a writ of habeas corpus.

In 1930 the Department of Labor issued a warrant of arrest for the appellant, charging him with being an alien subject to deportation to Italy, his native country, under the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917 (c. 29, § 19, 39 Stat. 889, title 8, U.S.C. § 155 8 U.S.C.A. § 155) for the reason that he had been twice sentenced, subsequent to his entry and to May 1, 1917, for terms of one year or more, for the commission of crimes involving moral turpitude, namely, grand larceny and robbery. The warrant of arrest was duly served by the immigration officials and a hearing was duly accorded the appellant upon the charge contained in the warrant. Following the hearing, the Secretary of Labor issued a warrant of deportation under date of February 14, 1931. That warrant designated the appellant as "Umberto Cosentino, or Humbert Castello." No deportation of the petitioner was had under this warrant, but, under date of September 17, 1936, the Secretary of Labor issued a superseding warrant of deportation in lieu of the original warrant, which superseding warrant named the appellant as "Umberto Miri, alias Umberto Cosentino or Humbert Castello." The appellant was taken into custody under this superseding warrant and was about to be deported when he filed in the court below his application for a writ of habeas corpus, from the denial of which he has taken this appeal.

Appellant does not question the propriety of the proceedings which resulted in the issuance of the original deportation warrant, nor does he deny the authority of the Secretary of Labor to issue the superseding warrant. He concedes that he was lawfully found to be an alien subject to deportation under the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, and that he is the identical person named in the warrant for his arrest and in the original warrant of deportation, and that he is held in custody under the superseding warrant in which...