Ex parte Urbanowicz, No. 120.

CourtU.S. District Court — Panama Canal Zone
Writing for the CourtPOLLOCK
Citation24 F.2d 574
PartiesEx parte URBANOWICZ.
Decision Date28 January 1928
Docket NumberNo. 120.

24 F.2d 574 (1928)

Ex parte URBANOWICZ.

No. 120.

District Court, D. Kansas, First Division.

January 28, 1928.


John A. Chumbley, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Al F. Williams, U. S. Atty., Alton H. Skinner, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Topeka, Kan., for respondent.

POLLOCK, District Judge.

Petitioner filed his application for a writ of habeas corpus, and the warden of the prison has filed his response, admitting the restraint of petitioner and attempting to justify the same, and the matter stands submitted for decision as to the right of the warden, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, to hold petitioner in confinement. The facts are conceded, and may be briefly summarized, as follows:

Petitioner was charged, tried, and convicted of the crime of embezzlement from the government in the District Court for the District of Montana, and by that court sentenced to confinement in the United States penitentiary at Leavenworth, this state, for a period of 20 years from July 2, 1921. Thereafter the President commuted this period of imprisonment to 12 years. Thereafter, petitioner having served a sufficient period of his time to enable him to apply for a parole to the parole board of the prison, which was in manner and form as by the law and the rules of the prison required, this application was received by the parole board, acted upon, and on the 11th day of February, 1926, he was released from the prison on his parole. This parole was by the Attorney General approved February 8, 1926. Thereafter, and on June 5, 1926, petitioner was arrested on the warrant of the warden of the Leavenworth penitentiary, this warrant commanding the officer executing it to return petitioner to the warden of the Leavenworth prison, but, instead of so doing, petitioner was by order of the Attorney General's office taken to and lodged in the United States penitentiary located at Atlanta, Ga.

Being confined therein, on October 30, 1926, he filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which, on application to and hearing before Hon. Samuel H. Sibley, United States judge, was granted, and petitioner was discharged from said prison, and he returned to Cleveland, Ohio, under his parole. Thereafter, and after he had received official authority therefor, petitioner removed from the city of Cleveland to the city of St. Paul, in the state of Minnesota, where, on April

24 F.2d 575
4, 1927, on the receipt of a letter from the president of the parole board requesting him to so do, he came to the Leavenworth prison and appeared before the board, without being arrested on the warrant of the warden. Thereupon the board of parole as then constituted proceeded to revoke his parole in the following manner

It...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Basila v. Western Union Telegraph Co., No. 226.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • 31 Enero 1928
    ...the limitation upon a carrier's liability for baggage by Boston & Maine Railroad v. Hooker, 233 U. S. 97, 34 S. Ct. 526, 58 L. Ed. 868, 24 F.2d 574 L. R. A. 1915B, 450, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 593, and Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Woodbury, 254 U. S. 357, 41 S. Ct. 114, 65 L. Ed. 301, decided ......
  • Ex parte Ellard
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 3 Julio 1985
    ...of a showing that the parolee violated a condition of his parole? There is a split of authority on this issue. In Ex parte Urbanowicz, 24 F.2d 574 (D.Kan.1928), the Court held that a parole granted to a United States prisoner could not be cancelled or rescinded except for some offense commi......
  • Klinkner v. Squier, No. 10744.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 11 Agosto 1944
    ...to a final judgment discharging him from parole; hence the parole could not thereafter be revoked. He cites Ex parte Urbanowicz, D.C., 24 F.2d 574, and Henratty v. Zerbst, D.C., 9 F.Supp. 230. Neither decision aids him, for in neither case had there been misconduct during the period of the ......
3 cases
  • Basila v. Western Union Telegraph Co., No. 226.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • 31 Enero 1928
    ...the limitation upon a carrier's liability for baggage by Boston & Maine Railroad v. Hooker, 233 U. S. 97, 34 S. Ct. 526, 58 L. Ed. 868, 24 F.2d 574 L. R. A. 1915B, 450, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 593, and Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Woodbury, 254 U. S. 357, 41 S. Ct. 114, 65 L. Ed. 301, decided ......
  • Ex parte Ellard
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 3 Julio 1985
    ...of a showing that the parolee violated a condition of his parole? There is a split of authority on this issue. In Ex parte Urbanowicz, 24 F.2d 574 (D.Kan.1928), the Court held that a parole granted to a United States prisoner could not be cancelled or rescinded except for some offense commi......
  • Klinkner v. Squier, No. 10744.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 11 Agosto 1944
    ...to a final judgment discharging him from parole; hence the parole could not thereafter be revoked. He cites Ex parte Urbanowicz, D.C., 24 F.2d 574, and Henratty v. Zerbst, D.C., 9 F.Supp. 230. Neither decision aids him, for in neither case had there been misconduct during the period of the ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT