APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. D.C. Habeas Corpus No. 1481.
Van Dusen, Hunter and Garth, Circuit Judges.
This appeal challenges a district court order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a federal prisoner, alleging that his extradition from Jamaica and subsequent confinement as a parole violator are illegal. See McGann v. U.S. Board of Parole & M. R. Hogan, Warden, 356 F. Supp. 1060, Opinion of 4/6/73 (M.D. Pa., H.C. No. 1481).
Petitioner was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment in 1954 by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland upon his guilty plea to bank robbery. In June 1955, he entered another guilty plea to another charge of bank robbery in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment, subsequently reduced to 19, to run concurrently with the Maryland sentence.*fn1 In 1966, he was paroled with approximately 2950 days remaining to be served on his Maryland sentence. A condition of this parole was that he was to remain in the Southern District of New York. On April 10, 1969, the U.S. Board of Parole issued a parole violation warrant, charging, inter alia, that he had left the Southern District of New York without permission.
By the summer of 1969, the U.S. Department of Justice, having learned that petitioner had left the United States and gone to Jamaica, started initial steps to extradite petitioner from Jamaica to this country under a treaty (47 Stat. 2122) between the United States and the United Kingdom which is applicable to Jamaica.*fn2 After hearing, petitioner was extradited for bank robbery, the offense underlying his status as a parolee, which offense is an extraditable offense under the treaty.*fn3
After a parole revocation hearing in New York in April 1972, his parole was revoked by the U.S. Board of Parole on May 2, 1972, on the ground that he had left the Southern District of New York without permission.
We reject petitioner's contention that his extradition was invalid. The holding of Johnson v. Browne, 205 U.S. 309, 316, 51 L. Ed. 816, 27 S. Ct. 539 (1907), precludes any review of the Jamaican court's decision as to the extraditable nature of the offense, and petitioner's arguments as to the illegality of American actions in regard to the extradition are all without merit. He was properly extradited for conviction and sentence of the basic bank robbery offense.*fn4
Appellant's contention that the petitioner's "present incarceration is in violation of [the above-mentioned] treaty" is rejected. The petitioner's reliance on the treaty language (Article 7) that appellant shall not be kept in custody for ". . . any other crime or offense, or on account of any other matters than those for which the extradition shall have taken place . . ." is misplaced. Although violation of the terms of parole was the reason for his re-confinement, the crime (18 U.S.C. § 2113(d)) for which he is being held is the bank robbery for which he was convicted by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. See McGann v. United States, 249 F.2d 431 (4th Cir. 1967); United States v. McGann, 161 F. Supp. 629 (D. Md. 1958); United States v. McGann, 150 F. Supp. 463 (D. Md. 1957).
The other contentions of petitioner have been considered ...