FRANCIS JARAD SCHULTZ, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A prisoner's transfer during an appeal of a habeas corpus denial does not divest the appellate court of jurisdiction.
Appellant was transferred from one federal penitentiary to another while his appeal from a denied habeas corpus petition was pending. He argued this t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Court Rules cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The only issue raised in this appeal from the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which requires discussion is appellant’s claim that his rights have been impaired by reason of the fact that he was transferred during the pendency of his appeal from the federal penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia, to that facility’s counterpart in Lewis-burg, Pennsylvania, in violation of the Rules of this court.1
We think it clear that such a transfer cannot divest this court of jurisdiction to review the denial of appellant’s petition. See Ex parte Catanzaro, 138 F. 2d 100 (3rd Cir. 1943). Lest this be regarded as an implied condonation of a deliberate disregard of our Rules, we hasten to point out that were we to find appellant entitled to the writ, his custodian could find himself confronted with an opportunity to explain his inability to respond to the writ in a proper proceeding.
However, we are not faced with the necessity for such proceedings in this instance, for on the merits we are in agreement with the district court’s conclusion that appellant has presented no case appropriate for habeas corpus relief. Consequently, the improvident transfer wrought no prejudice to his cause.
The judgment is affirmed.
. “Pending review of a decision refusing a writ of habeas corpus, the custody of the prisoner shall not be disturbed.” Rule 33(1), Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goodman v. Keohane, 663 F.2d 1044 (11th Cir. 1981)
-
Schultz v. United States, 382 F.2d 294 (5th Cir. 1967)
Authorities Cited
- Ex parte Catanzaro. Appeal of Catanzaro, 138 F.2d 100 (3d Cir. 1943)