In his petition for writ of habeas corpus, petitioner seeks to have removed a detainer lodged against him by the State of Pennsylvania in connection with a State sentence. He contends that the State relinquished jurisdiction over him when it released him to federal custody.
Although it appears that petitioner could more properly attack the Pennsylvania detainer in that State and, therefore, the District Court perhaps should not have considered the habeas petition, the District Court correctly concluded that petitioner is not entitled to the relief he seeks. As this court recently reiterated in DeLong v. United States,
“It is settled that where one sovereign surrenders a prisoner to another sovereign for trial, sentencing, and execution of the sentence before he is to be returned to the custody of the sovereign first having jurisdiction, the prisoner has no standing to attack the *560 agreement between sovereigns and the surrendering sovereign has not thereby-waived its right to have the prisoner returned to its custody for trial.”
See also
Chunn v. Clark,
Affirmed.
Notes
. The case of Shields v. Beto,
