Banghart v. Swope
| Decision Date | 16 June 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 12166.,12166. |
| Citation | 175 F.2d 442 |
| Parties | BANGHART v. SWOPE, Warden. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Frank J. Hennessy, U.S. Atty., Joseph Karesh, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before: MATHEWS, HEALY and ORR, Circuit Judges.
Appellant, to whom we shall hereafter refer as petitioner, an inmate of the United States Penitentiary at Alcatraz, California, petitioned the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Southern Division, for a writ of habeas corpus. That court issued an order requiring E. B. Swope, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Alcatraz Island, California, to show cause why the said writ should not issue. Said Warden, to whom we shall hereafter refer as respondent, made a return which was traversed by petitioner. The said United States District Court determined from the petition, return and traverse that no factual issue was tendered and that the petition could be determined as a matter of law. The petition was denied and the proceedings dismissed. Petitioner has appealed.
The judgment and sentence entered on May 15, 1934 in the Western District of North Carolina, Ashville Division, under which petitioner was imprisoned, reads in part as follows:
Petitioner escaped from the Illinois State Penitentiary on October 9, 1942, was later taken into custody, and on January 2, 1943, the Attorney General of the United States ordered that petitioner be transferred from the Illinois State Penitentiary to the United States Penitentiary at Alcatraz. Petitioner contends that the trial court having fixed the place of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Hough
...whether the months of confinement in the Louisiana penitentiary should be deducted from the 15 year federal sentence. In Banghart v. Swope, 9 Cir., 175 F.2d 442, 443, defendant was under sentence of an Illinois state court for 99 years; in 1934 he was brought before the District Court, foun......
-
United States v. Myers
...or consecutive to state confinement. Prison authorities need not and do not always follow such recommendations.3 (See Banghart v. Swope (9th Cir. 1949) 175 F.2d 442; Joslin v. Moseley (10th Cir. 1969) 420 F.2d 1204; Helms v. Blackwell (5th Cir. 1966) 367 F.2d 149; United States v. Hough (S.......
-
Hash v. Henderson
...the circumstances, to serve the full sentence concurrently. See, Rayborn v. Swope, 215 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1954); Banghart v. Swope, 175 F.2d 442 (9th Cir. 1949). Nor can it be inferred that he consented to the unexpired portion of the federal sentence being served concurrently with the stat......
-
Larios v. Madigan
...authority of the sentencing judge to order where the defendant shall be confined. Rayborn v. Swope, 215 F.2d 604, 9 Cir., 1954; Banghart v. Swope, 175 F.2d 442, 9 Cir., 1949. In the case at bar there is not even an attempted order. There is merely a minute entry promising to make a recommen......