William Ernest Frye v. J. E. Moran, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, La Tuna, Texas
William Ernest FRYE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. E. MORAN, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, La Tuna, Texas, Defendant-Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to new Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court this case has been assigned to this panel for screening and eventual disposition as a Summary Calendar matter or, in the alternative, by returning the record to the Clerk for calendaring and disposition after oral argument. For the reasons set forth below we have directed the Clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing.
The memorandum opinion of the district court is reported. Frye v. Moran (D.C.W.D.Tex.1969) 302 F.Supp. 1291 . Serious questions as to the construction of Title 18, U.S.C., Chapter 402, Sections 5005-5026, The Federal Youth Correction Act, specifically Section 5017, and its interplay in the overall statutory scheme with Title 18, U.S.C., Section 3568 and Rule 38(a) (2), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, are raised by that court’s disposition of the issues. Despite the gravity of these issues, the result of the district court’s decision is nevertheless simply to provide for appellant’s unconditional release by November 3, 1969, at the latest rather than immediately as urged by appellant.
We do not believe that the screening process provides sufficient basis for disposition of the questions raised, but rather consider that they better lend themselves to disposition upon oral argument. Time and space limitations as to calendaring are such that the imminence of the release date does not provide sufficient time to calendar the case for oral argument and dispose of it before it is mooted.
In consideration of the foregoing, the judgment below is affirmed. This action should not be understood as either adoption or rejection of, either the district court’s reasoning or its conclusions. Those matters are not passed upon.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Harry B. Suggs v. Loren Daggett, Warden
- John Riley Henrique v. United States Marshal and United States Parole Commission
- Thomas Michael Powell v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, John Allman, Superintendent, Etc., Attorney General of the United States
- In re Michael McClanahan a Witness Before the August 16, 1979 Additional Grand Jury
- Diane E. Davis v. Carson W. Markley, Warden, Fed. Ref. For Women
- United States v. Vaught
Most recent
- Thomas Michael Powell v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, John Allman, Superintendent, Etc., Attorney General of the United States
- Caballery v. United States Parole Commission
- John Riley Henrique v. United States Marshal and United States Parole Commission
- In re Michael McClanahan a Witness Before the August 16, 1979 Additional Grand Jury
- Diane E. Davis v. Carson W. Markley, Warden, Fed. Ref. For Women
- Harry B. Suggs v. Loren Daggett, Warden
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.