Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

67 F.2d 250

Docket No. 7133.

Poffenbarger v. Aderhold

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Oct. 25, 1933.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1933-10-25

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently July 1966

5 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Morgan v. Devine · Ebeling v. Morgan · Poffenbarger v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1933-10-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Fred Poffenbarger, of Atlanta, Ga., in pro. per.

¶2H. T. Nichols, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.

¶3Before BRYAN, FOSTER, and SIBLEY, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Appellant unsuccessfully sought by a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court to obtain his discharge from the Atlanta penitentiary where he is imprisoned under a sentence for taking and abstracting mail matter from mail bags. 18 USCA § 317. His contention here that, having undergone punishment for stealing the mail bags in which the mail matter was contained, he is being punished twice for the same offense, is the same in substance as was' made and rejected on a direct appeal taken by him from the judgment of conviction. Poffenbarger v. United States (C. C. A.) 20 F.(2d) 42.

¶6The sentence has not yet expired, and there is no new or additional ground of objection to it. However, we agree with the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that the sentence which appellant has served and the one which he is now serving are not for the same offenses. Ebeling v. Morgan, 237 U. S. 625, 35 S. Ct. 710, 59 L. Ed. 1151; Morgan v. Devine, 237 U. S. 632, 35 S. Ct. 712, 59 L. Ed. 1153.

¶7The order appealed from is affirmed.

/67/f2d/250 · .json · Public domain