Court Opinion

ID: 9639746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:46:51.143425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:21.451301
License: Public Domain

HUXMAN, Circuit Judge
(concurring specially).
I think the decision should be placed squarely on the ground that appellant has no standing in court to challenge any violation of the rule of comity by the federal government, if it did violate the rule. He owed a sentence to both the state and the federal government, and no rights of his were violated if by a violation of the duty the federal government owed to the state *179to return him to its custody, he is compelled to serve the federal sentence before he concludes his state sentence.
The statement in the concluding paragraph of the opinion of the court, in substance that there was no tenable ground on which the judgment should be vacated in view of the fact that the Attorney General of the state, at the instance of the Governor, had filed a brief in this case stating that there was a full understanding between the sovereigns that the federal government should retain appellant until he had served his sentence under the federal conviction, might lead one to conclude that the decision would be otherwise if such were not the case. With this I cannot agree. If it were admitted that the federal government was retaining custody of appellant in violation of its duty to the state under the rule of comity, the decision in the case would of necessity still be the same, 'because no right of the appellant would be invaded, and he would have no standing in court to enforce a right which the state alone might assert against the other sovereign.