Case Name: H. J. JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. I. MOSELEY, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, and U. S. Attorney General, et al., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1970-11-11
Citations: 434 F.2d 655
Docket Number: No. 349-70
Parties: H. J. JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. I. MOSELEY, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, and U. S. Attorney General, et al., Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before LEWIS, Chief Judge, PICKETT, Circuit Judge, and KERR, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 434
Pages: 655–655

Head Matter:
H. J. JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. I. MOSELEY, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, and U. S. Attorney General, et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 349-70.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Nov. 11, 1970.
H. J. Jones, pro se.
Before LEWIS, Chief Judge, PICKETT, Circuit Judge, and KERR, District Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The initial review of this case prompted us to inform the appellant, H. J. Jones, that we were contemplating summary affirmance on our own motion and afforded him an opportunity to submit a memorandum in opposition. See Rule 8(d), Revised Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (1970). He had earlier submitted a brief addressing the underlying merits and chose not to file additional papers.
We have now carefully reviewed the files and records in this case along with the original file of the earlier district court case, No. L-202, and are thoroughly convinced that the judgment of the district court is correct. Concluding that there is no need for further argument on the unsubstantial question presented, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in 319 F.Supp. 455 (D.C.Kan., 1970).