George Clary Neal v. United States Marshal at S. Dist. of Georgia, 476 F.2d 602 (5th Cir. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
George Clary Neal v. United States Marshal at S. Dist. of Georgia, 476 F.2d 602 (5th Cir. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Freedman v. United States (gand, 1977-07-18)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Freedman v. United States
N.D. Ga. · 1977 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Jhirad v. Ferrandina, supra. There are a handful of decisions in this circuit which without adequate explanation consider whether the statute of limitations had run despite the lack of a treaty provision, Neal v. United States Marshal at Southern District of Georgia, 476 F.2d 602 (5th Cir. 1973), and at least one other court has indicated that if the statute of limitations of the asylum country (or state) had expired, extradition would have been barred.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
George Clary NEAL, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES MARSHAL AT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA Et Al., Respondents-Appellees
72-3495.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Apr 16, 1973.
476 F.2d 602
John J. Sullivan, Savannah, Ga., for petitioner-appellant., R. Jackson B. Smith, Jr., U. S. Atty., Augusta, Ga., Murray R. Stein, John L. Murphy, Chief, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondentsappellees.
Brown, Dyer, Simpson.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

In his habeas corpus petition, Neal seeks review of the district court’s determination that he is extraditable to Canada. Neal admits that he is the same person against whom the Government of Canada has pending criminal charges for obtaining money by false pretenses and for possession of stolen property. Moreover, it is uncontroverted that these charges are enumerated extraditable offenses within the extradition treaties between the United States and Canada; that these offenses are felonies under the criminal laws generally in force within the United States; and that the applicable statutes of limitations have not expired. Accordingly, the only issue that we need decide on appeal is whether the district court erred in holding that there was probable cause to believe that the crimes charged were committed in Canada and that Neal may have committed them.

A careful review of the record convinces us that there was sufficient evidence to establish the requisite probable cause and, therefore, the judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.