Case Name: Irving R. CHERRY and Floyd Fisher, Petitioners, v. Curtis REID, Superintendent, D. C. Jail, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1955-11-03
Citations: 232 F.2d 31
Docket Number: Misc. No. 518
Parties: Irving R. CHERRY and Floyd Fisher, Petitioners, v. Curtis REID, Superintendent, D. C. Jail, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 232
Pages: 31–32

Head Matter:
Irving R. CHERRY and Floyd Fisher, Petitioners, v. Curtis REID, Superintendent, D. C. Jail, Respondent.
Misc. No. 518.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Nov. 3, 1955.
Petition for Rehearing Denied Nov. 17, 1955.
Writ of Mandamus Denied March 26, 1956.
See 76 S.Ct. 550.
Messrs. Francis L. Casey, Jr., and Saul G. Lichtenberg, Washington, D. C., for petitioners.
Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and Lewis Carroll and Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Attys., for respondent.
Before PRETTYMAN, BAZELON and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The matter before us is a motion for leave to file a record, time having expired.
The appeal sought is from the discharge of a writ of habeas corpus by which it was sought to avoid an extradition. Our movants, Cherry and Fisher, are subject to an extradition warrant. Hearings on the warrant and on the petition for a writ of habeas corpus were had in the District Court. In this court we appointed counsel and heard extended argument upon a petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Memoranda were filed. New questions are open, either in the District Court or here, in extradition proceedings. We found no question presentable on this appeal which would justify allowance of appeal in forma pauperis, and we denied the petition. We denied a stay of extradition and also denied an extension of time to file the record. We find no reason to change the views we then held, and we decline to exercise a discretion to permit the out-of-time filing. No purpose useful in the administration of justice would be served by our doing so in this case.
. See Johnson v. Matthews, D.C.Cir., 1950, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 376, 182 F.2d 677, certiorari denied, 1950, 340 U.S. 828, 71 S.Ct. 65, 95 L.Ed. 608.