Case Name: Vicko GLAVIC, Appellant, v. Charles J. BEECHIE, District Director, et al., Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1964-12-18
Citations: 340 F.2d 91
Docket Number: No. 21342
Parties: Vicko GLAVIC, Appellant, v. Charles J. BEECHIE, District Director, et al., Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 340
Pages: 91–93

Head Matter:
Vicko GLAVIC, Appellant, v. Charles J. BEECHIE, District Director, et al., Appellees.
No. 21342.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 18, 1964.
Sam Williamson, Houston, Elmo Schwab, Barker, Barker & Coltzer, Galveston, Tex. for appellant.
James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Atty., Woodrow Seals, U. S. Atty., Morton L. Susman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for appellees.
Before HUTCHESON, WISDOM and GEWIN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from an opinion and order denying relief under a petition for habeas corpus filed by appellant in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. This opinion, which carefully and correctly states the facts and discusses and decides the questions of law presented for decision there, is reported as Glavic v. Beechie, at 225 F.Supp. pages 24 et seq., and we approve and affirm, the findings, conclusions, decision and judgment of the District Court.
In addition to the two questions presented for decision and decided below by the district judge, appellant seeks to present as a third question here:
"Whether the fact, if it be a fact, that the apportionment of members of the House of Representatives of the Eighty-Second Congress was in the case of certain states constitutionally defective had the effect of nullifying legislation enacted by that Congress."
This question, which was not in any manner presented for determination or decision in the District Court, is not on the record before us presented for decision, and we do not consider it.
The judgment is affirmed.
. Whether the procedure here followed was proper under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and under the administrative regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act.
. Whether the procedure, if in accord with the Act and regulations pursuant thereto, accords the appellant due process of law within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.