Winkel v. Matthews
This text of 214 F.2d 281 (Winkel v. Matthews) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This appeal is from an order discharging a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant is in custody under an extradition order. He contends he was held an unreasonably long time on a mere detainer before the requisition from Ohio, the demanding State, was received. The record does not clearly establish this contention. In any event the contention does not appear to have been made in the District Court, Certainly it was not made during the time when appellant was — allegedly—unreasonably held. We find no error affect-inS substantial rights,
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
214 F.2d 281, 94 U.S. App. D.C. 216, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winkel-v-matthews-cadc-1954.