United States v. Shaw

District of Columbia

United States v. Shaw

115 F. Supp. 532, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2441

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedSeptember 9, 1953

DocketCr. No. 1793-52

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 115 F. Supp. 532 (United States v. Shaw) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Shaw, 115 F. Supp. 532, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2441 (D.D.C. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

LAWS, Chief Judge.

The mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, - U.S.App.D.C. -, -F.2d-, affirming the judgment in the above-entitled action, having been received and filed by the Clerk of this Court, has been presented to the Court for “execution and * * * proceedings * * * as according to right and justice and the laws of the United States ought to be had, * * * Counsel for defendants has moved to stay receipt of the mandate pending presentation of a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States so that defendants may remain on bail.

The receipt by this Court upon presentment of a mandate of its superior court, however, is a purely ministerial act which cannot be stayed by action here. The District Court has no jurisdiction except to carry out the command of its appellate court; it cannot vary or examine the command for any other purpose than execution according to its terms. Mays v. Burgess, 1945, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 236, 152 F.2d 123. Any stay of [533]*533proceedings must be sought in the Court issuing the mandate rather than the Court receiving it. The question of bail is properly raised by proceedings under Rule 46(a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., and not by motion to stay receipt of the mandate of the Court of Appeals.

Defendants’ motion to stay receipt of the mandate is accordingly denied.

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

LAWS, Chief Judge.

The mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, - U.S.App.D.C. -, -F.2d-, affirming the judgment in the above-entitled action, having been received and filed by the Clerk of this Court, has been presented to the Court for “execution and * * * proceedings * * * as according to right and justice and the laws of the United States ought to be had, * * * Counsel for defendants has moved to stay receipt of the mandate pending presentation of a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States so that defendants may remain on bail.

The receipt by this Court upon presentment of a mandate of its superior court, however, is a purely ministerial act which cannot be stayed by action here. The District Court has no jurisdiction except to carry out the command of its appellate court; it cannot vary or examine the command for any other purpose than execution according to its terms. Mays v. Burgess, 1945, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 236, 152 F.2d 123. Any stay of [533]*533proceedings must be sought in the Court issuing the mandate rather than the Court receiving it. The question of bail is properly raised by proceedings under Rule 46(a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., and not by motion to stay receipt of the mandate of the Court of Appeals.

Defendants’ motion to stay receipt of the mandate is accordingly denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 F. Supp. 532, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-shaw-dcd-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack