Oliver L. Vardy v. United States of America, and Donald Forscht, U. S. Marshal in and for the Southern District of Fla.

Fifth Circuit

Oliver L. Vardy v. United States of America, and Donald Forscht, U. S. Marshal in and for the Southern District of Fla.

533 F.2d 310

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 9, 1976

Docket75-2180

StatusPublished

This text of 533 F.2d 310 (Oliver L. Vardy v. United States of America, and Donald Forscht, U. S. Marshal in and for the Southern District of Fla.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Oliver L. Vardy v. United States of America, and Donald Forscht, U. S. Marshal in and for the Southern District of Fla., 533 F.2d 310 (5th Cir. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In response to petitioner’s spirited assertion that the panel opinion improperly departs from In re Chan Kam-Shu, 477 F.2d 333 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 847, 94 S.Ct. 112, 38 L.Ed.2d 94 (1973), we observe that our opinion is not at variance with Chan Kam-Shu, which is not applicable here because of critical factual differences. In Chan Kam-Shu, the only reason supported by the record for Chan’s presence in the United States at the time of the extradition request was the fact that he was being held in jail by federal officials. Here, in contrast, Vardy was in the United States because he chose to remain here rather than complete the journey from Panama to Canada. Federal officials had no role in his entrance into the United States, and their only role in detaining him in this country was to effectuate his own desire.

The Petition for Rehearing is DENIED and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.

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

PER CURIAM:

In response to petitioner’s spirited assertion that the panel opinion improperly departs from In re Chan Kam-Shu, 477 F.2d 333 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 847, 94 S.Ct. 112, 38 L.Ed.2d 94 (1973), we observe that our opinion is not at variance with Chan Kam-Shu, which is not applicable here because of critical factual differences. In Chan Kam-Shu, the only reason supported by the record for Chan’s presence in the United States at the time of the extradition request was the fact that he was being held in jail by federal officials. Here, in contrast, Vardy was in the United States because he chose to remain here rather than complete the journey from Panama to Canada. Federal officials had no role in his entrance into the United States, and their only role in detaining him in this country was to effectuate his own desire.

The Petition for Rehearing is DENIED and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

533 F.2d 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oliver-l-vardy-v-united-states-of-america-and-donald-forscht-u-s-ca5-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack