Court Opinion

ID: 9642973
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:14:01.811148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:55.431119
License: Public Domain

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.
I concur in the result.
, There were in this case three assignments of error. Two of the assigned errors (assignments 1 and 3) were not specified in appellant’s brief,1 as required by our rule 24, were not argued by appellant, in his brief or orally, and should, therefore, be deemed abandoned. This leaves for consideration assignment 2, which reads: “The court erred by exceeding its jurisdiction in granting the writ of habeas corpus and' discharging [appellee] from the custody of [appellant].”
Appellant’s tirief states: “The question involved is: Did the District Court have jurisdiction to inquire into the lawfulness of custody under a warrant issued' by the United States Board of Parole before the Board has an opportunity to 'give appellee a hearing and take final action?”
Thus, it is seen, the only question presented to this court is whether or not the District Court had jurisdiction of this case. Appellant contends that the District Court had no such jurisdiction. This contention is without merit. By sections 751-761 of the Revised Statutes, as amended, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 451-461, District Courts and judges thereof are expressly empowered “to grant writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of restraint of liberty,” where, as in this case, the applicant “is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States,” and thereupon “to dispose of the party as law' and justice require.” Such jurisdiction exists and has frequently been exercised in cases of this character. See, for example, United States v. Anderson, 8 Cir., 76 F.2d 375, cited by appellant, and Christianson v. Zerbst, 10 Cir., 89 F.2d 40. The District Court had jurisdiction of this case.
' Whether, upon the facts shown, the District Court was right or wrong in holding that appellee’s detention was unlawful, we have no occasion to decide, no such question being presented to this court.
The order appealed from should be affirmed.

 I refer to appellant’s amended brief filed November 18, 1937, superseding his original (defective) brief filed June 12, 1937.