Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
UNITED STATES ex rel. FRANK v. MULLIGAN, United States Marshal; SAME v. COTTER, United States Commissioner, 1933 — 66 F.2d 562 · caselaw · US
Criminal Law · MBE-tested
UNITED STATES ex rel. FRANK v. MULLIGAN, United States Marshal; SAME v. COTTER, United States Commissioner
66 F.2d 562·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1933
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
UNITED STATES ex rel. FRANK v. MULLIGAN, United States Marshal. SAME v. COTTER, United States Commissioner.
No. 490.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
July 17, 1933.
George Z. Medalie, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Alvin McKinley Sylvester and Anthony Maoriello, Asst. U. S. Attys., both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
J. Richard Davis, of New York City, for appellee.
Before MANTON, L. HAND, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
These writs arose out of removal proceedings whieh were instituted before the United States commissioner under an indictment filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. The petitioner was ordered removed on a warrant directing the marshal for the Southern District of New York to deliver the relator to the marshal of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The indictment charged a conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States in that there should be introduced and carried into and upon the grounds and premises of the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta, Ga., contraband articles as narcotic drugs; that is, opium, morphine, cocaine, heroin, and other articles not permitted by the rules and regulations of the penal institution.
The identity of the petitioner was sufficiently established as the person named in the indictment in the Northern District of Georgia, and the indictment sufficiently states a violation of the criminal statute.
The order is affirmed upon the authority of U. S. ex rel. Scharlon v. Pulver, 54 F.(2d) 261 (C. C. A. 2); U. S. ex rel Mouquin v. Hecht, 22 F.(2d) 264 (C. C. A. 2); Beavers v. Henkel, 194 U. S. 73, 87, 24 S. Ct. 605, 48 L. Ed. 882.
Order affirmed.