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.
MILLER v. ADERHOLD, Warden, 1932 — 56 F.2d 152 · caselaw · US
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
MILLER v. ADERHOLD, Warden
56 F.2d 152·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1932
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
MILLER v. ADERHOLD, Warden.
No. 6470.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 20, 1932.
Rehearing Denied March 11, 1932.
See, also, 52 F.(2d) 1084.
Joseph F. Miller, of Atlanta, Ga., and E. E. Willis, of New Orleans, La., for appellant.
Clint W. Hager, U. S. Atty., and Hal Lindsay, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Before BRYAN, FOSTER, and WALKER, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Appellant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with stealing mail matter, in violation of section 194 of the Criminal Code (18 USCA § 317). The District Judge who received the plea suspended sentence indefinitely, but some six months later another judge of the same District Court imposed a sentence of four years in the Atlanta penitentiary. This appeal is taken from an order dismissing a writ of habeas corpus previously issued, and remanding appellant to custody.
The order indefinitely and unconditionally suspending the imposition of sentence was void. Ex parte United States, 242 U. S. 27, 37 S. Ct. 72, 61 L. Ed. 129, L. R. A. 1917E, 1178, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 355. A judge of the trial court had authority, notwithstanding the attempted suspension, to impose sentence, and to order that appellant be committed to the penitentiary. United States, ex rel. Campbell v. Bishop (C. C. A.) 47 F.(2d) 95.
The judgment is affirmed.