Case ID: f2d_15/html/0561-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WALKER, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SOFGE v. SNOOK, Warden, etc.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    October 5, 1926.)
    No. 4902.
    Courts <@=>96(l).
    Decision of Supreme Court that Anti-Narcotic Act, § 2, as amended (Comp. St. § 6287b), is constitutional, so long as it is not departed from by that court, is binding on lower courts.
    Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Georgia; Samuel H. Sibley, Judge.
    Habeas corpus by Frank Sofge against John W. Snook, Warden of the United States Penitentiary. From an order discharging the writ, relator appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Hooper Alexander, of Atlanta, Ga., and Thomas W. Hardwick, of Dublin, Ga., for appellant.
    J. W. Henley, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
    Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.
   WALKER, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order discharging a writ of habeas corpus, sued out by the appellant, who was imprisoned in the United States penitentiary at Atlanta, pursuant to a sentence imposed, following his entering a plea of guilty to a count of an indictment which charged him with a violation of section 2 of the Anti-Narcotic Act, as amended. Comp. Stat. §§ 6287g, 6287h. The right to a discharge was claimed on the ground that that act is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that that act is constitutional. United States v. Doremus, 249 U. S. 86, 39 S. Ct. 214, 63 L. Ed. 493; Webb v. United States, 249 U. S. 96, 39 S. Ct. 217, 63 L. Ed. 497; United States v. Wong Sing, 260 U. S. 18, 43 S. Ct. 7, 67 L. Ed. 105; United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U. S. 394, 36 S. Ct. 658, 60 L. Ed. 1061, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 854. We are bound to follow those decisions, so long as they have not been departed from by the court which rendered them. Teter v. United States (C. C. A.) 12 F.(2d) 224.

The order appealed from is affirmed.