Cardigan v. White
| Decision Date | 04 April 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 7443.,7443. |
| Citation | 18 F.2d 572 |
| Parties | CARDIGAN v. WHITE, Acting Warden, etc. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
James A. Cardigan, of Leavenworth, Kan., in pro per.
Before STONE and VAN VALKENBURGH, Circuit Judges, and SYMES, District Judge.
This is an appeal from denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant was convicted in the Eastern district of Michigan for violation of the Dyer Act and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, where he is now confined under such sentence. He presents here two points.
The first is that section 5 of the Dyer Act (41 Stat. 324, 325 Comp. St. § 10418f) requires the imprisonment for violation of that act to be served in a district "in or through which such motor vehicle has been transported or removed by such offender" and that the motor vehicles covered in this indictment were never in or transported through the district of Kansas (containing Leavenworth). This contention is founded on the language of the section that "any person violating this act may be punished in any district in or through which such motor vehicle has been transported or removed by such offender." The argument is that "punishment," as used in the section, means the place of undergoing the punishment and not the venue of the indictment and trial.
A consideration of this act in connection with the character of the offense, the statutory provisions regulating venue in criminal cases generally and those governing the establishment of the federal prisons and incarceration therein convinces that the above quoted section provides for the venue and that alone. This exact contention has been so ruled by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Whitaker v. Mathues, 9 F.(2d) 913, 914.
The second point is that appellant is entitled to a parole. The basis of this contention is that he has been incarcerated for the portion of his sentence qualifying him for a parole; that he has complied with all of the regulations entitling him to a parole and that the board of parole has recommended him for such. It appears that this recommendation by the board was disapproved by the Attorney General. As to this action by the Attorney General, his contention is that such action is merely ministerial and that the Attorney General cannot prevent the granting of such parole but that the parole law operates automatically under such conditions.
Paroles are allowable only under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hauck v. Hiatt, 8518.
...Cir., 44 F.2d 166, certiorari denied 282 U.S. 901, 51 S.Ct. 215, 75 L.Ed. 794; Redman v. Duehay, 9 Cir., 246 F. 283; Cardigan v. White, Acting Warden, 8 Cir., 18 F.2d 572, certiorari denied 274 U.S. 755, 47 S.Ct. 770, 71 L.Ed. 1334; United States ex rel. Anderson v. Anderson, 8 Cir., 76 F.2......
-
Bass v. Hiatt
...Cir., 44 F.2d 166, certiorari denied 282 U.S. 901, 51 S.Ct. 215, 75 L.Ed. 794. Redman v. Duehay, 9 Cir., 246 F. 283. Cardigan v. White, Acting Warden, 8 Cir., 18 F.2d 572, certiorari denied 274 U.S. 755, 47 S.Ct. 770, 71 L.Ed. 1334. United States ex rel. Anderson v. Anderson, 8 Cir., 76 F.2......
- Stewart v. Kelly Axe Mfg. Co.