Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

424 F.2d 255

Docket No. 14050.

United States v. Farley

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided April 7, 1970.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1970-04-07

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1983

1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

2 counsel of record

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 751

Relies on United States v. Louisiana · Derengowski v. United States · Derengowski v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1970-04-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Blaine L. Gilbert, Baltimore, Md. (court-appointed counsel) for appellant.

¶2Barnet D. Skolnik, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.

¶3Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and SOBELOFF and WINTER, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5On December 11, 1968, appellant escaped from custody while being transported from the Maryland House of Correction to appear in the United States District Court on a writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum. For this he was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 751(a).

¶6The sole challenge of this appeal is to the jurisdiction of the court below on the theory that appellant was not in federal custody when he escaped. The contention lacks merit. Since appellant was being conveyed under valid process of the federal government, he was in federal custody. Derengowski v. United States, 404 F.2d 778 (8th Cir. 1968), cert. den., 394 U.S. 1024, 89 S.Ct. 1640, 23 L.Ed.2d 49. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is granted.

¶7Affirmed.

/424/f2d/255 · .json · Public domain