Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

United States ex rel. Holly v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

174 F.2d 480

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1949-04-14
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. The appellant, who is incarcerated in the Western State Penitentiary of Pennsylvania pursuant to the judgment of a Pennsylvania State court, petitioned the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania for a writ of habeas corpus. In an exhaustive opinion the district court considered on their merits the many contentions made by the appellant and reached the conclusion that none of them justified the issuance of the writ. The court accordingly denied the petition. We have carefully examined the record and are satisfied that the action of the district court was correct for the reasons set out at length in the opinion filed by Judge Gourley.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States ex rel. Holly v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
3 opinions
UNITED STATES v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,174 F.2d 480(3rd Cir. 1949)
UNITED STATES of America, ex rel. John J. HOLLY, Appellant, v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA.
No. 9892.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted on Appellant's Brief April 8, 1949.
Decided April 14, 1949.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District Pennsylvania; Wallace S. Gourley, Judge.
John J. Holly, pro se.

T. McKean Chidsey, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Fred L. Brothers, District Attorney of Fayette County, Uniontown, Pa. for appellee (no brief was filed in this court by above and they took no action on the appeal).
Before MARIS, GOODRICH, and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, who is incarcerated in the Western State Penitentiary of Pennsylvania pursuant to the judgment of a Pennsylvania State court, petitioned the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania for a writ of habeas corpus. In an exhaustive opinion the district court considered on their merits the many contentions made by the appellant and reached the conclusion that none of them justified the issuance of the writ. The court accordingly denied the petition. We have carefully examined the record and are satisfied that the action of the district court was correct for the reasons set out at length in the opinion filed by Judge Gourley. It, therefore, becomes unnecessary for us to determine whether the appellant has exhausted the remedies available to him in the courts of Pennsylvania within the meaning of Section 2254 of Title 28 U.S.C.A.

Accordingly the order of the district court will be affirmed.