373 F.2d 524 - Schultz v. United States — 373 F.2d 524

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 2014

8 federal appellate ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Francis Jarad Schultz, pro se.

¶2F. D. Hand, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., Charles L. Goodson, U. S. Atty., Theodore E. Smith, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.

¶3Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and BELL and GOLDBERG, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM:

¶5The 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

¶6We 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.

¶7However, 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.

¶8The judgment is affirmed.