An Act to authorize the issuance of certificates of citizenship in the Canal Zone
PL 89-710 (H.R.3993), enacted 11/02/1966

1104 
PUBLIC LAW 89-710-NOV. 2, 1966 
[80 STAT. 
Public Law 89-710 
November 2, 1966 
- ^ ^ A C T 
[H. R. 3993] 
To authorize the issuance of certificates of citizenship in the Canal Zone. 
Be H enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives 
of the 
United States of Am<eriea in Congress assembled, That section 101 
(a) (38) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (66 Stat. 171; 8 
I'.S.C. 1101 (a) (38)), is amended by adding thereto the following sen-
tence : "For the purpose of issuing certificates of citizenship to persons 
Avho are citizens of the Ignited States, the term 'United States' as used 
t%^ic\452.' 
"^ section 341 of this Act includes the Canal Zone." 
Approved November 2, 1966. 
^ 
Public Law 89-711 
November 2, 1966 
A N A C T 
'- ' • 
•' 
Relating to applications for writs of liabeas corpus by i>ersons in custody 
pursuant to judgments of State courts. 
Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Re/presentatives of the 
"ta^rcus°o'dy.^' 
Vnitcd Statcs of America In Congress assembled. That section 2244 
6 2 Stat. 965. 
of title 28, I^uitcd States Code, is amended (a) by inserting at the 
beginning of the text thereof the subsection designation "(a)", (b) by 
striking out of such section the words ", or of any State," and (c) by 
inserting in such section at the end thereof two additional subsections 
to read as follows: 
" (b) When after an evidentiary hearing on the merits of a material 
factual issue, or after a hearing on the merits of an issue of law, a 
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court has been 
denied by a court of the United States or a justice or judge of the 
United States release from custody or other remedy on an application 
for a writ of habeas corpus, a subsequent application for a writ of 
habeas corpus in behalf of such person need not be entertained by a 
court of the United States or a justice or judge of the United States 
unless the application alleges and is predicated on a factual or other 
ground not adjudicated on the hearing of the earlier application for 
the writ, and unless the court, justice, or judge is satisfied that the 
applicant has not on the earlier application deliberately withheld the 
newly asserted ground or otherwise abused the writ. 
"(c) In a habeas corpus proceeding brought in behalf of a person 
in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, a prior judg-
ment of the Supreme Court of the United States on an appeal or review 
by a writ of certiorari at the instance of the prisoner of the decision 
of such State court, shall be conclusive as to all issues of fact or law 
with respect to an asserted denial of a Federal right which constitutes 
ground for discharge in a habeas corpus proceeding, actually adjudi-
cated by the Supreme Court therein, unless the applicant for the writ 
of habeas corpus shall plead and the court shall find the existence of a 
material and controlling fact which did not appear in the record of the 
proceeding in the Supreme Court and the court shall further find 
80 STAT. ] 
PUBLIC LAW 89-711-NOV. 2, 1966 
1105 
that the applicant for the writ of habeas corpus could not have caused 
such fact to appear in such record by the exercise of reasonable 
diligence." 
SEC. 2. Section 2254 of title 28, United States Code is amended— 
62 stat. 967. 
(a) by amending the catchline of the section to read as follows: 
"§2254. State custody; remedies in Federal courts." 
(b) by inserting in such section, immediately after the catchline 
thereof, the following new subsection: 
•'(a) The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a 
district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus 
in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State 
court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Con-
stitution or laws or treaties of the United States."; and 
(c) by inserting at the beginning of the two paragraphs thereof 
existing on the day preceding the date of enactment of this Act 
the subsection designations "(b)" and "(c)", respectively; and 
(d) by inserting immediately after such paragraphs the fol-
lowing new subsections "(d)", " (e)", and "(f)"; 
" (ni) In any proceeding instituted in a Federal court by an appli-
cation for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant 
to the judgment of a State court, a determination after a hearing on 
the merits of a factual issue, made by a State court of competent juris-
diction in a proceeding to which the applicant for the writ and the 
State or an officer or agent thereof were parties, evidenced by a written 
finding, written opinion, or other reliable and adequate written indicia, 
shall be presumed to be correct, unless the applicant shall establish 
or it shall otherwise appear, or the respondent shall admit— 
" (1) that the merits of the factual dispute were not resolved in 
the State court hearing; 
"(2) that the facthnding procedure employed by the State 
court was not adequate to afford a full and fair hearing; 
"(3) that the material facts were not adequately developed at 
the State court hearing; 
"(4) that the State court lacked jurisdiction of the subject 
matter or over the person of the applicant in the State court 
proceeding; 
"(5) that the applicant w'as an indigent and the State court, 
in deprivation of his constitutional right, failed to appoint counsel 
to represent him in the State court proceeding; 
" (6) that the applicant did not receive a full, fair, and adequate 
hearing in the State court proceeding; or 
"(7) that the applicant was otherwise denied due process of law 
in the State court proceeding; 
" (8) or unless that part of the record of the State court proceed-
ing in which the determination of such factual issue was made, 
pertinent to a determination of the sufficiency of the evidence to 
support such factual determination, is produced as provided for 
hereinafter, and the Federal court on a consideration of such part 
of the record as a w^hole concludes that such factual determination 
is not fairly supported by the record: 
And in an evidentiary hearing in the proceeding in the Federal court, 
when due proof of such factual determination has been made, unless 
1106 
PUBLIC LAW 89-712-NOV. 2, 1966 
[80 
STAT. 
tlie existence of one or more of the circumstances respectively set forth 
in paragraphs numbered (1) to (7), inclusive, is shown by the appli-
cant, otherwise appears, or is admitted by the respondent, or unless 
the court concludes pursuant to the provisions of paragraph numbered 
(8) that the record in the State court proceeding, considered as a 
whole, does not fairly support such factual determination, the burden 
shall rest upon the applicant to establish by convincing evidence that 
the factual determination by the State court was erroneous. 
"(e) If the applicant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence 
adduced in such State court proceeding to support the State court's 
determination of a factual issue made therein, the applicant, if able, 
shall produce that part of the record pertinent to a determination of 
the sufficiency of the evidence to support such determination. 
If the 
applicant, because of indigency or other reason is unable to produce 
such part of the record, then the State shall produce such part of the 
record and the Federal court shall direct the State to do so by order 
directed to an appropriate State official. 
If the State cannot provide 
such pertinent part of the record, then the court shall determine under 
the existing facts and circumstances what weight shall be given to the 
State court's factual determination. 
'•(f) A «-opy of the official records of the State i-oiirt, duly certified 
by the clerk of such court to be a, true and cori'ect copy of a finding, 
judicial opinion, or other reliable written indicia showing such a fac-
tual determination by the State couit shall be admissible in the 
Federal court proceeding." 
SEC. ii. Item 2254 in the analysis of chapter 15B of title 28, United 
States Code, immediately preceding section 2241 thereof, is amended 
to read a>; follows: 
"SH<-. ^22.^>4. St;i(«' custody: nMiitMlies in F"e(lenil courts." 
Approved November 2, 1966. 
November 2, 1966 
[H. R. 5990] 
Panama Canal. 
Benefits to cer-
tain former em-
ployees. 
Public Law 89-712 
AN ACT 
To grant increased benefits to persons receiving cash relief under the Panama 
Canal Cash Relief Act of July 8, 1937. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of RepreHentattves of the 
United iState-H of America in Congress assenihled^ That subsection 181 
(b) of title 2, Canal Zone Code, approved October 18,1962 (76A Stat. 
20), is amended to read as follows: 
"(b) An additional amount of $20 per month shall be paid to each 
person who receives payment of cash relief under subsection (a) of 
this section and sliall be allowed without regard to the limitations 
contained therein.'' 
SEC. 2. This Act shall take effect on the first day of the month fol-
lowing that in which it is enacted. 
Approved November 2, 1966.