In re Goldfine

First Circuit

In re Goldfine

282 F.2d 763

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedOctober 4, 1960

DocketNo. 5745 (Original). Movant

StatusPublished

This text of 282 F.2d 763 (In re Goldfine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Goldfine, 282 F.2d 763 (1st Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This court has grave doubts that it has jurisdiction under the all writs section, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), to grant this motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus for the reason that issuance of the writ would not be in aid of our appellate jurisdiction, but it appearing that the petitioner has a clear remedy by motion under 18 U.S.C. § 4244 of which his counsel at the hearing admitted that he was fully aware but chose not to invoke, we do not regard this as an exceptional case warranting entertainment of the writ.

An order will be entered denying the motion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This court has grave doubts that it has jurisdiction under the all writs section, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), to grant this motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus for the reason that issuance of the writ would not be in aid of our appellate jurisdiction, but it appearing that the petitioner has a clear remedy by motion under 18 U.S.C. § 4244 of which his counsel at the hearing admitted that he was fully aware but chose not to invoke, we do not regard this as an exceptional case warranting entertainment of the writ.

An order will be entered denying the motion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 F.2d 763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-goldfine-ca1-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack