UNITED STATES EX REL. CERULLO
v.
FOLLETTE, WARDEN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Cerullo sought an extension of time to file a petition for certiorari and a stay of a Court of Appeals mandate with bail pending resolution of his petition, which Justice Harlan denied the extension request as unnecessary and directed that Cerullo first present his bail request to the Court of Appeals before seeking review by the Supreme Court.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Memorandum of
Mr. Justice Harlan, Circuit Justice.
Applicant requests an extension of time to file a petition for certiorari. Since, in the posture of this case, his time for filing will not expire until December 31, 1969, I perceive no necessity for an extension at this stage. No reason appears why the time remaining will not be sufficient for the preparation and filing of a petition for certiorari.
Applicant also requests a stay of the mandate of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and continuance of bail pending determination of his petition for certiorari. Pursuant to the opinion of the Court of Appeals, the mandate has already issued. Treating the papers as an application for bail pending action on the petition, I note that there is no sign that applicant has made a request to the Court of Appeals, as he may under Fed. Rule App. Proc. 23 (b). In my view that court should have an opportunity to consider applicant's request before it is entertained by a Justice of this Court. Cf. U. S. Sup. Ct. Rule 27.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walberg v. Israel, 776 F.2d 134 (7th Cir. 1985)…he prisoner, provides that the prisoner may be admitted to bail, or not, “as may appear fitting to the court or justice or judge,” etc. The state argues, contrary to the position taken by Justice Harlan in United States ex rel. Cerullo v. Follette, 396 U.S. 1232, 90 S.Ct. 146, 24 L.Ed.2d 56 (1969) (in chambers), that exclusive jurisdiction to enforce Rule 23 lies in the Supreme Court when as in this case that is the court in which review of the decision to release the prisoner is being sought. The state ar…
Authorities Cited
- United States ex rel. Vincent Cerullo v. Follette, 393 F.2d 879 (2d Cir. 1968)