Court Opinion

ID: 6898121
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-23 21:52:05.08909+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:06:04.518512
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
After a full and fair hearing below and in an opinion and order fully discussing and disposing of the issues he tendered, 74 F.Supp. 756, appellant’s application for habeas corpus was denied.
An examination of the record disclosing no error, the judgment is affirmed.1

 Adams, Warden, et al. v. United States, ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 63 S.Ct. 236, 87 L.Ed. 268, 143 A.L.R. 435;, Nivens v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 128 F.2d 15, certiorari denied 317 U.S. 628, 63 S.Ct. 42, 87 L.Ed. 507; Adkins v. Sanford, 5 Cir., 120 F.2d 471; DeMaggio v. Coxe, 2 Cir., 70 F.2d 840; Rowley v. Welch, 72 App.D.C., 351, 114 F.2d 499; Oxman v. United States, 8 Cir., 148 F.2d 750, 159 A.L.R. 155.