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.
Nat RAY, Appellant, v. A. C. ADERHOLD, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, Appellee, 1934 — 72 F.2d 1018 · caselaw · US
General
Nat RAY, Appellant, v. A. C. ADERHOLD, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, Appellee
72 F.2d 1018·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1934
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
Nat RAY, Appellant, v. A. C. ADERHOLD, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, Appellee.
No. 7314.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 16, 1934.
In forma pauperis.
Nat Ray, of Atlanta, Ga., in pro. per.
Lawrence S. Camp, U. S. Atty., and H. T. Nichols, Sp. Atty., both of Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Before BRYAN, FOSTER, and SIBLEY, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
On the authority of Aderhold v. Edwards (C. C. A.) 71 F.(2d) 297, the judgment is affirmed.