United States Ex Rel. Struck v. United States Marshal for Eastern Dist. of New York et al, 197 F.2d 118 (2d Cir. 1952)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - 197 F.2d 118 (2d Cir. 1952) Argued May 13, 1952
Decided May 29, 1952

David T. Berman, Brooklyn, N. Y., for relator-appellant.

Frank J. Parker, U. S. Atty., Brooklyn, N. Y. (George W. Percy, Jr., and Charles J. Butera, Asst. U. S. Attys., Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for respondents-appellees.

Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CHASE, and FRANK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.


The relator was taken into custody by the United States Marshal for the Eastern District of New York pursuant to a bench warrant for his arrest issued on October 13, 1951, by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Western Division. The relator had been indicted in said district for violating 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1461, 3237. After his arrest in the Eastern District of New York, the relator was brought before a United States Commissioner and upon a hearing was identified as the person indicted in the Alabama court. The Commissioner found probable cause for holding the relator for removal. Immediately thereafter, the latter petitioned the District Court for the Eastern District for a writ of habeas corpus, which was allowed. On November 16, 1951, a hearing was held on the return to the writ which was continued on November 23, 1951. On the latter date the District Court entered an order dismissing the writ. From that order this appeal is taken.

The appeal must be dismissed because of the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253 which reads: "There shall be no right of appeal from such an order in a proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove, to another district or place for commitment or trial, a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States * * *." See United States ex rel. Hagan v. Kelly, 2 Cir., 101 F.2d 1022; Hartman v. Sloan, 3 Cir., 99 F.2d 942.

Appeal dismissed.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.