Poffenbarger v. Aderhold

Fifth Circuit

Poffenbarger v. Aderhold

67 F.2d 250, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 4426

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 25, 1933

DocketNo. 7133

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 67 F.2d 250 (Poffenbarger v. Aderhold) 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

Poffenbarger v. Aderhold, 67 F.2d 250, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 4426 (5th Cir. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant unsuccessfully sought by a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court to obtain his discharge from the Atlanta penitentiary where he is imprisoned under a sentence for taking and abstracting mail matter from mail bags. 18 USCA § 317. His contention here that, having undergone punishment for stealing the mail bags in which the mail matter was contained, he is being punished twice for the same offense, is the same in substance as was' made and rejected on a direct appeal taken by him from the judgment of conviction. Poffenbarger v. United States (C. C. A.) 20 F.(2d) 42.

The sentence has not yet expired, and there is no new or additional ground of objection to it. However, we agree with the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that the sentence which appellant has served and the one which he is now serving are not for the same offenses. Ebeling v. Morgan, 237 U. S. 625, 35 S. Ct. 710, 59 L. Ed. 1151; Morgan v. Devine, 237 U. S. 632, 35 S. Ct. 712, 59 L. Ed. 1153.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant unsuccessfully sought by a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court to obtain his discharge from the Atlanta penitentiary where he is imprisoned under a sentence for taking and abstracting mail matter from mail bags. 18 USCA § 317. His contention here that, having undergone punishment for stealing the mail bags in which the mail matter was contained, he is being punished twice for the same offense, is the same in substance as was' made and rejected on a direct appeal taken by him from the judgment of conviction. Poffenbarger v. United States (C. C. A.) 20 F.(2d) 42.

The sentence has not yet expired, and there is no new or additional ground of objection to it. However, we agree with the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that the sentence which appellant has served and the one which he is now serving are not for the same offenses. Ebeling v. Morgan, 237 U. S. 625, 35 S. Ct. 710, 59 L. Ed. 1151; Morgan v. Devine, 237 U. S. 632, 35 S. Ct. 712, 59 L. Ed. 1153.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 F.2d 250, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 4426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poffenbarger-v-aderhold-ca5-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack