Sofge v. Snook

Fifth Circuit

Sofge v. Snook

15 F.2d 561, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 2945

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 5, 1926

DocketNo. 4902

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 15 F.2d 561 (Sofge v. Snook) 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

Sofge v. Snook, 15 F.2d 561, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 2945 (5th Cir. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

WALKER, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order discharging a writ of habeas corpus, sued out by the appellant, who was imprisoned in the United States penitentiary at Atlanta, pursuant to a sentence imposed, following his entering a plea of guilty to a count of an indictment which charged him with a violation of section 2 of the Anti-Narcotic Act, as amended. Comp. Stat. §§ 6287g, 6287h. The right to a discharge was claimed on the ground that that act is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that that act is constitutional. United States v. Doremus, 249 U. S. 86, 39 S. Ct. 214, 63 L. Ed. 493; Webb v. United States, 249 U. S. 96, 39 S. Ct. 217, 63 L. Ed. 497; United States v. Wong Sing, 260 U. S. 18, 43 S. Ct. 7, 67 L. Ed. 105; United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U. S. 394, 36 S. Ct. 658, 60 L. Ed. 1061, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 854. We are bound to follow those decisions, so long as they have not been departed from by the court which rendered them. Teter v. United States (C. C. A.) 12 F.(2d) 224.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

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

WALKER, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order discharging a writ of habeas corpus, sued out by the appellant, who was imprisoned in the United States penitentiary at Atlanta, pursuant to a sentence imposed, following his entering a plea of guilty to a count of an indictment which charged him with a violation of section 2 of the Anti-Narcotic Act, as amended. Comp. Stat. §§ 6287g, 6287h. The right to a discharge was claimed on the ground that that act is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that that act is constitutional. United States v. Doremus, 249 U. S. 86, 39 S. Ct. 214, 63 L. Ed. 493; Webb v. United States, 249 U. S. 96, 39 S. Ct. 217, 63 L. Ed. 497; United States v. Wong Sing, 260 U. S. 18, 43 S. Ct. 7, 67 L. Ed. 105; United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U. S. 394, 36 S. Ct. 658, 60 L. Ed. 1061, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 854. We are bound to follow those decisions, so long as they have not been departed from by the court which rendered them. Teter v. United States (C. C. A.) 12 F.(2d) 224.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 F.2d 561, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 2945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sofge-v-snook-ca5-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack