Norman Eugene Lee v. United States
501 F.2d 494
8th Cir.
1974
Check Treatment

*1 camper. The de- able cause to search unfenced. It was tion of the was border nervousness, man- generally extreme his known that it was common fendant’s trembling, illegal speech, na- area to cross ner aliens to choose that agent camper And the ture of the its blan- into the United States. vehicle apprehended from the exter- who arrest had ket-covered bunk visible made this prior probable provided to believe five other week. cause aliens ior concealing or aliens was vehicle court found that agent’s Thus, the search contraband: stop of defendant’s vehicle suppress justified, and the motion to was agent suspicion. on a founded was based properly denied.1 was agree. proximity We to the border vehicle was which the defendant’s Affirmed. seen; radio information indi KOELSCH, (dissent- Circuit cating illegal there cross had been ing) : ing; other the fact that there were no Passing question whether area where the aliens had vehicles per- stop justifiable, I am far from was entered; the defend and the fact that subsequent events con- suaded heading away ant from the border was probable cause search. stituted only road northbound which leads is that The most record shows together, away it, from when considered being stopped, extremely upon became justify suspicion ap a founded would, Most, people all, I nervous. if not concealing pellant illegal aliens agitation venture, display if their some the back of truck. crowded to the automobile were side v. Zubia-San night in a remote and des- of the road chez, (9th 1233-1234 Cir. they were then accosted olate area 1971), we said: stranger. by an unidentified Courts repeatedly We held that an au- have prob- not tolerate officer-created should may stop thorized officer an automo- able cause. investiga- bile and conduct a limited inquiry occupants, tive

probable cause, if he has “reasonable grounds” for action—“a founded such

suspicion necessary, is all that is some can deter-

basis mine that the detention was arbi- Eugene LEE, Appellant, Norman trary harassing.” Quoting Wilson Porter, (9th F.2d Cir. America, UNITED STATES 1966). Appellee. recently have rule in We restated the No. 73-1653. Jaime-Barrios, F.2d States v. Appeals, United States Court (9th 1974), and in United Cir. Eighth Circuit. Lincoln, (9th F.2d Cir. States v. 1974). May 15, 1974. justified Submitted Thus, agent stopping the defendant’s vehicle. Aug. 1, Decided Having agent determined that justified in sus- was picion his reasonable stop

and that valid,

vehicle was we conclude gave agent prob-

subsequent events probable (9th 1974). cause, Nor need we we find need not 492 F.2d 995 Cir. Since government’s argument defendant “consented” consider consider whether Heimforth, See extended search. search. United States v. valid border 1974). (9th Lincoln, See F.2d Cir. 494 F.2d 833 Patterson, 1974) ; *2 Judge.

GIBSON, Circuit Petitioner filed this action in the Court, States District Arkansas,1 Eastern District alia, alleging depriva- inter constitutional rights by delay process due *3 (Board executing parole Parole) of violator in the failure of warrant and parole the Board of to hold a original 1968, revocation date of the warrant. revocation The facts and actions of various courts are complex require detailed considera- tion. petitioner pled 1962,

On March 2, guilty violating five counts Dyer (interstate transportation Act 2312) vehicles, stolen Court, United States District Eastern District Arkansas.2 petitioner sentenced to a total of nine years imprisonment on this “Arkansas” 26, peti- conviction. On December 1966, paroled tioner the sentence for and, “Arkansas” some- during spring time violated parole. May On the Board of Parole issued a violator war- rant, which was delivered to the United States Marshal for Southern District of Indiana. For us, reasons unknown to Kansas state custody had authorities during tioner July, 1968, and released him to federal authorities Kansas July on May 1968, pa- 1968. The role violator warrant was delivered to the United Marshal States for Kansas August on Lavey, 1968, but John Little Ark., T. for not served Rock, petitioner appellant. Septem- this time. On ber grand jury Atty., Kenneth Lit- Stoll, U. S. Asst. petitioner Kansas indicted for new vio- appellee. Ark., tle Rock, for Dyer Act, lations of the and on December 5, 1968, petitioner pled VOGEL, Judge, guilty Before Circuit Senior to these WEBSTER, “Kansas” Templer, GIBSON counts. George Circuit Honorable Judges. Judge States District Dyer viction Henley, second Honorable Smith Act J. conviction in Chief Kansas, Judge, infra, Court, to be discussed District E'astern as the States “Kan- sas” District of conviction. Arkansas. Dyer 2. We shall refer to this first con- Act viction as the “Arkansas” con- nine-year serving Kansas, sentenced the remainder the District for imprisonment years for the “Arkansas” conviction.

petitioner sentence to four Febru- violations.3 On “Kansas” for the August 26,1971, incarcerated while On petitioner serv- commenced ary 3, pro se filed a Indiana, “Kan- four-year ing the Hon- action before the pa- May 8, 1968, sas” conviction. Noland, United States E. orable James lodged, warrant remained role violator Judge, District Southern not served, but was Ac- Division. Indiana, Haute Terre he served the sentence while cording to counsel “Kansas” conviction court, the basis reply before this brief Penitentiary Haute, Indiana. in Terre of habeas “writ July 14, 1971, petitioner com- On August Noland filed serving pleted for the “Kan- day, conviction, on that and, sas” same pa- May 8, 1968 Parole executed its May war- *4 day of on the last warrant role violator petitioner rant on the was served Dyer appellant’s Act Kansas penitentiary Haute, in Terre Indiana. him to remainder which caused serve the pursuant The Board of Parole to this by imposed him on the sentence petitioner. warrant the arrested Judge Henley March 1962.” On on Judge 26, 1971, Noland dis- July attorney in November Indi- On and held by the action appointed missed ana was petitioner’s proper Magistrate petitioner action represent that at a sentencing hearing motion the parole before revocation the judge.4 denying petitioner’s Penitentiary, Haute, Terre Indi- States pauperis appeal pursuant August held which was 1971. ana, forma Judge 1915(a), objected hearing on to 28 Petitioner Noland to the on ground explained: December of Parole petitioner lacked merely The decision said that informed it asking wrong judge that he would file a habeas for tioner was corpus action in expressed the federal district relief. concern This Court hearing, court Indiana. pre- After over the action in Parole Board’s petitioner’s parole granted responsi- on empting judge’s December the trial petitioner sentencing. judge was revoked. The The trial bilities serving violation; commenced Dyer the remainder of sentenced Act as nine-year his pa- for the “Arkan- the Parole Board decided that sas” conviction Terre Haute violation merited consecutive role and then in Minnesota. Petitioner sentences. This Court feels paroled subject supervision again, sentencing judge to the to re- should be able parole in Indiana. authorities He view that determination. again parole, again violated commonly Boards do what was revoked. complains judge The briefs do of, and record here exactly not indicate when revocation this case not care -to review occurred sentencing. However, whether a determi- those By held. court, last notice to this made him. This nations should be petitioner is incarcerated in Indiana and Court therefore recommended Moseley, Judge 3. We noted in Tanner v. We think Noland’s reference to “the 1971) J., Judge Templer (Bright, sentencing judge” concur meant on ring), only conviction, that “[u]nder the rule of the “Kansas” he was the Zerbst as Kidwell, judge vary possibly 304 U.S. 359 [58 S.Ct. who could the term 1399], Parole, L.Ed. the Board the Kansas sentence relation to the court, generally the district determines wheth violation reincarceration. er the balance of the -first sentence shall be consecutively served with the second sen tence.” sentencing that the thinks this Court to the petitioner apply rankly, [F] per Indi- Court relief, the re either judge for legal proper granted forum ana was the in Gernie [United lief legal- (S.D.N.Y. litigation question F.Supp. Gernie, ity petition to alter 1964)] revocation or under parole. 28 U.S.C. Judge Henley Nevertheless, entertained Sec. previously, As stated motion, remedy prisoners in “since position. applied in Indiana and It is the has for relief this finding ground he was denied relief Court that on * * * here, argument since' on law should have come no valid make can ruling appeal in this time for from the Indiana lies facts that sentencing long expired, has since and since of in the instead Court * * responded amend- Government has *. petition Concerning ed the merits.” appeal petitioner did delay the Board of Parole of the habeas dismissal Noland’s executing warrant, action. July 24, 1973, denied petitioner filed January 3, 1973, On relief on merits. With added dis- involved, se docu- pro here possible post cussion other pursuant Title “motion entitled ment hold relief, we Dis- liberally very 2255,” which, 28 construed, U.S.C. trict did not have *5 the same based on petitioner’s concerning hear claim the corpus complaint grounds his habeas delay of the Board of Parole in execut- Indiana. Noland in ing with filed parole the violator warrant. May petitioner, 24, time this 1973, On always Jurisdiction is the first issue employed counsel, represented by amend- decide; to power for without the express claims his 2255 motion ed § hear action and execute a decision rights constitutional that his were sitting actually the tribunal is not a delay abridged by the Board due to the overview, court all. at In the courts executing parole Parole in viola- stay legislatively within the determined tor warrant.5 first ruled power limits properly so that their is original petition on held the and citizenry. used for the overstepping petitioner was not entitled relief since jurisdictional lead limits can nothing ambiguous illegal “there least to confusion, at the worst to a imposed the about consecutive sentences corruption granted power. Here petitioner.” Considering on the amend- we underlying have confusion. Such petition, Judge Henley ed first stated: principles on the limits of continually must be realized when deal- respect all due [W]ith ing with the case, individual for minor Indiana, gravely Court this Court to necessary inroads and established power doubts that it has to entertain principles may destroy principles a allegations of the amended slight step at a time. tion under section 2255 or under the section “all writs” [*] 1651(a). -X- provision [*] [*] of 28 -X- U.S.C.A., [*] Court lacked parties Concededly, if cannot waive the District hear jurisdic- Morrissey; however, allege appeal a 5. not violation Petitioner on Mor- states jurisdictional rissey grounds Brewer, 471, 2593, our does v. decision on 92 U.S. S.Ct. inquire require (1972), required hearing not us to further into this a 33 L.Ed.2d 484 on day July 23, 1968, of the Su- issue. Petitioner preme should aware federal authori- parole recent statement Court’s ties knew that violator warrant retroactivity Morrissey. petitioner. lodged against note 10 and See would he Petition- accompanying, text er’s amended did § infra. language itself, and hearing clear by proceeding to tion question 188, from the cases where Clark, 335 U.S. v. Ahrens merits. cases). appellant (Citing If (1948); arose. 1443, 92 L.Ed. being illegally detained, his 33, 37 is Sahli, States United v. ju- filing in the petitioner’s 1954). (7th Cir. dicial district.” in federal this § and the Government’s in Arkansas court Moseley, F.2d supra, 441 v. Tanner not neces- responding merits do original). (emphasis in jurisdic- grant sarily District Court necessarily under The unstated but the claim. hear lying of Tanner rationale properly First, claim ju subject matter lacked district court Dis cognizable under presented of the claim risdiction juris subject matter lacked trict Court subject of Tanner’s matter 2255. The § claim, restate motion. We to hear the diction matter of the execution claims made recog .two one of the (a) appeal: District Court grounds 2255.6 for relief under nized unreasonably Parole Board of words, claim herein raised In other rights waited of constitutional denial cognizable under is not parole July to serve until Supreme said has warrant; (b) Board of “juris enacting 2255 was the bill did not revocation hold major purpose dictional bill” with hearing 1968, in July, violation shifting previous ha Morrissey 471, 92 Brewer, more con actions to the beas Ct. 33 L.Ed.2d S. sentencing court. venient forum of the granted the revocation of States, Hill v. United on December (1962); L.Ed.2d 417 Moseley, F.2d 122 In Tanner Hayman, 1971), faced 212-214, 96 L.Ed. presented with the exact facts and issue States, (1952); Hartwell *6 petitioner’s claim, in first and Tanner’s (D.D.C.1972).8 F.Supp. 354, Prior 357 petitioner’s applies rationale to both in fed to the enactment of 2255 § quoting above claims. Stinson being deluged eral district courts were (8th States, 342 F.2d 508 United prisoners for relief with claims 1965), Cir. court held: in the territorial who were incarcerated “[Ajppellant attacking the va- is not of these district courts. Section areas lidity imposed upon jurisdic of the sentence 2255 was enacted to create * * * question- sentencing him ishe in the rather, tional basis court ing claims, types post .the Board of Parole certain conviction regarding general dealing imposi the manner in which that in those with the being Appellant executed. in of the sentence which the sentenc may ing previous not utilize 28 court U.S.C.A. 2255 have the knowl would § edge to secure the relief seeks. he This and the immediate to the access subject grounds 424, 426-427, 6. The matter for relief under 82 L.Ed. 7 (1962). § 2255 are: 2d 417 (1) imposed that the sentence was in viola- Hayman, tion of the Constitution laws of United ; (2) the court 96 L.Ed. 232 was with- jurisdiction impose sentence; out such (3) post remedies sentence was excess of the For a discussion of conviction by law; Developments (4) maximum in the authorized courts see subject Corpus, Harv.L. sentence is otherwise col- Law —Federal Habeas Hunter, (1970) ; lateral attack. Rev. B. Post Con- E. States, Remedies, Jackson v. United F.R.D. 153. 495 F.2d viction (8th 1974), quoting States, Cir. Hill v. United new, sentence.” grant- second Therefore, lated necessary files. § already decided been This has jurisdiction sen- personam in the ined Board, appellant is attack- but tencing petitioner and over unexpired ing though the term petitioner, even of the custodian ** * he was de- because necessarily they would Morrissey hearing shortly after nied a This territory of the court. 8,May issued its Parole Board Congress grant jurisdiction by awas warrant. departure in habeas from the rule in Ahrens actions announced supra, part had no pres- physical required the proceeding, proceed- violation and that custodian ence the defendant ing validity cannot affect of the territorial within the confines “Arkansas” sentence. or not Whether district court. proceeding legally so toas affect the detention of the re- however, did not Section legality detention, lates to the grant subject jurisdiction over matter cognizable and is in habeas types post claims. It all corpus. subject jurisdiction matter established We do not dismiss for the enumerated ute, stat claims only upon allege here the failure legality relate which to the justiciable case under 2255. Petition Moseley, supra, sentence. Tanner v. Cf. er’s first 2255 motion Arkansas was 124; 441 F.2d at Stinson v. United pro se, filed liberally will review States, 508; supra, 342 F.2d Allen v. alleged the facts to determine whether States, (5th 327 F.2d Cir. any jurisdictional grounds there are 1964); Halprin States, the District Court to hear his claims. (9th 1951); F.2d Cir. Hart look complaint We of his “essence States, supra, F.Supp. well v. United so, controlling and do reference 357-58; States, Halprin v. United to the label or pleadings, title of F.Supp. 1186, (S.D.N.Y.1968). order that we determine whether the jurisdiction To allow under jurisdiction court had any theory purpose this case would defeat might afford relief.” Booker v. creating subject matter over Arkansas, imposition those claims 1967).9 Congress only of the sentence. intended types If specific shift 2255 motion is post construed claims order to as a distribute con federal habeas ac tion, efficiently. viction more cases In this in Arkansas involving the claims would still jurisdiction, lack petition the Board of *7 being Parole do er Henley’s not relate to confined in Indiana. The Su imposition preme nine-year of the Court in a “Arkansas” different context has sentence; recently they rather jurisdictional involve the construed matter re quirements petitioner’s of the execution of of corpus federal sentences. habeas un 2241(a). der 28 U.S.C. Braden v. 30th attacking Petitioner is not the le Court, Judicial Circuit 410 U.S. gality of the “Arkansas” (1973). 93 S.Ct. 35 L.Ed.2d 443 according to his brief: rigid Braden reversed the rule of attacking is not Ahrens proposition supra, required £He] v. presence “who is to decide the method of of the service defendant his unexpired personam of the custodian jurisdiction for in first sentence as re- Morgan, voiding judgment States v. order aas writ of error 247, 249, expressed n. goal judg- 74 S.Ct. L.Ed. oorarn nobis with the (1954), quoting Burford, ing simple papers statutory Darr v. “the test 200, 203-204, alleged 70 S.Ct. 94 L.Ed. whether facts are that entitle the applicant the Court viewed a to relief.” 153, 154. Remedies, 50 F.R.D. viction action. of a requirements of Nevertheless, if the even the habeas require that Braden does Judge Hen if and even are met present physically Rule plaintiff be sentencing judge to proper ley in which the district within al relief, has petition for re- however, least filed; it still at ** .* “nothing ready there was held that issuing writ “court quires sentences illegal the consecutive about over the custodian.” jurisdiction have petitioner.” reduction imposed on supra at Braden, 93 S.Ct. at the discre addressed of a sentence is conven- Although Braden discusses Court, and will of the District forum, considera- a venue ience of tion, denial District Court’s disturb the requi- not jurisdictional minimum v. under Rule 35. Jacobsen of relief custodian presence of the site States, of the confines the territorial within 1958). Also, Fed.R. relief under satisfied before must be 35, part of which Crim.P. allows are balanced. venue considerations any illegal of an sentence correction at ease, custodian In this no judgment allowable, time, is not since the the Eastern the confines ren of conviction authorized warden of Arkansas. District by Judge Henley. United dered States v. Penitentiary in Terre the United States Morgan, Indiana, petitioner’s Haute, can called be 98 L.Ed. 248 custodian, and the immediate Parole, C., Washington, D. located Further, pur coram nobis relief custodian due can called another suant to the all-writs section of the Ju detaining petitioner. procedures in Code, 1651(a), in dicial us, is still of last notice As appropriate under the of this case. facts Haute, Indiana. incarcerated Terre supra Morgan, See United 506, Therefore, nor neither the assuming Even 74 S.Ct. 247. the Eastern custodian is located within the District Court had the District of Arkansas. error, to entertain such a writ dowe therefore, personam, ju- Court, lacks type not think that this is the of com risdiction in a federal habeas action pelling circumstance in which this ex traordinary writ petitioner’s hear claim. should be allowed. Certainly, the District Morgan, supra power Arkansas lacks to entertain 247; Arkansas, Booker reduction of his Kansas sentence under petitioner may F.2d at 240. While still Fed.R.Crim.P. being the Kansas sentence present Morrissey v. Brewer revoca interlude confinement that has tion-of-parole argument before a prolonging had the effect of the service forum, appears it his whole case lacks sentence. The sentenc light substance in Wolff McDon ing judge Judge Templer in that case is nell, 573-576, U.S. 539, Kansas, in the District of could who (1974).10 L.Ed.2d 935 have reviewed In addition to our above re- comments light the “Kansas” parole conviction lating availability post of other lodged violator warrant but not relief, we dismiss petitioner. pro served on This was the *8 2255 motion for lack of employed cedure in Tanner. Cf. prejudice asserting without to his claim Ellenbogen, States v. (2d 1968); Hunter, proper E. B. Post a forum.11 Con- strongly point (emphasis supplied).” 10. We out to a re- Wolff v. McDon- nell, 2963, 2983, by Supreme cent U.S. statement the Court: L.Ed.2d process requirements “[T]lie due there an- Morrissey'] ‘applicable nounced [in were to be 11. We should note that first § parole,’ to revocations of future 2255 motion raised various col- necessary ingredi- dismissed rule. The risdictional ent, Petitioner’s § held, “jurisdiction the prejudice. it over without custodian”. Court said: Judge (concur- WEBSTER, Circuit long be reached as the custodian can So ring). by process, court can service the ' ruled, Henley jurisdiction’ Judge and I believe cor- a writ issue requiring ‘within prisoner brought rectly, against the merits. that the be today a on his dismisses the court for before Since unlikely prejudice, claim, requiring it be released seems or that he tion without question outright pursue custody, even if either will side prisoner my remains to be resolved. himself is view confined outside which jurisdiction. question is whether court’s territorial That States, full notice atU.S. 93 S.Ct. at 1130. appearance sup- claim, and can enter its Braden, it Since seems clear that it is per- ply the needed necessary only proc to obtain service particular upon federal sonal service upon the “custodian” in ess order for happens be warden within who jurisdiction. district court to exercise jurisdiction. the court’s territorial Thereafter, principles traditional of ven anomaly illustrates an This case which apply. ue tution, Braden involved a state insti and fed- a 2255 case now exists between § multiple state convictions and sov prisoner habeas eral cases outside ereignties. only Here deal with the purview respondent in a § 2255. system, penal federal and re all 2255 action is lated convictions are Bu federal. The America; respondent in other fed- reau of and the Prisons are prisoner eral cases is the of the warden scope. national It seems me that having custody petition- institution purely in a require federal context the er. This seems to so notwithstand- be personal jurisdiction ment over the ing in this case it of the hangs by very warden of the institution Board, United States Parole by thin thread. It has been abandoned warden, petitioner challenges. public statute in 2255 cases.2 What by requiring interest is served In Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit manager” local “branch be served be Court of Kentucky, 410 93 S. U.S. challenge fore the court can consider a (1973), Ct. Supreme L.Ed.2d the action of the Of national board? rejected argument advantage system what it to 2241(a)1 limited U.S.C. a dis challenge only be heard in Indiana? corpus jurisdiction trict court’s advantage In this disadvantage I can see no or prisoner seeking cases where the relief to either side if Hen juris is confined within its territorial ley permitted were to deal with the mer doing, expressly In so diction. it re its of the case in Arkansas. A recent jected any implication in Ahrens v. up comment way: sums it 92 L.Ed. long presence 1898 petitioner So as as names required respondent ju- person entity an inflexible lateral attacks convic- district court of the district wherein the course, Judge Henley ju- complained tion. Of did have restraint of is had. risdiction hear those claims and dismissed formulating post appealed. them. Those matters were not Congress prisoners, ignored the tradi- regarding tional rule choice aof re- granted spondent. responsible Writs of habeas are district courts coitus Supreme any Court, thereof, giving government, Justice notice to the any judge respondent courts circuit is the of record. respective jurisdictions. Developments their The order in the Law —Federal Habeas *9 judge Corpus, 1038, (1970). circuit shall be entered records 88 Harv.L.Rev. 1167

503 1406(a).6 1404(a),5 This him, rea- is no U.S.C. there power §§ to release exactly done in Wilkins reaching of what merits avoid son 1973). by Erickson, F.2d 969 petition. If he is confined may jurisdiction, venue, be unlike And process ac- judicial or executive state govern- waived.7 the state or of permitted name ment, he be should case, entered government respondent either as responded appearance and mer- its custody.3 holding in official him or the light Braden, of be its.8 In can it still per- concepts of adhere to strict cannot If said a federal district court purely federal jurisdiction in a cannot hear the because warden sonal case orphaned context, state we leave in an be served I believe district? corpus of federal habeas claims that future eases will make clear that those strictly prisoners appearance supplied which do not fall with- of the United States persona! jurisdiction If hand the in on the other 2255.4 needed and problem of venue viewed as one venue was waived.9 But because jurisdiction, weight authority than balance appears rather of still contrary plainly could convenience be satisfied and the prejudiced by holding or transfer district dismissal another our I might brought. it been where have concur. military cases, 3. Id. at 116R. In 8. I realize that in other factual circumstances Supreme adopted concept may Court has the United States as refuse to be named “presence” through sustaining respondent may contacts non-§ case. There superior superiors officers outside the nonetheless amen- to the warden Laird, 341, District. Strait v. able U.S. to the court’s cases. such 1693, S.Ct. 32 L.Ed .2d 141 See, g., Hensley Municipal Court, e. San possible 2255, Jose-Milpitas District, If relief is it is the Judicial Santa Clara 345, 1571, County, 350, exclusive and habeas is barred prisoner. (1973) for a federal [habeas The writ 36 L.Ed.2d 294 : corpus] may only by Thus, consistently rejected be used those who are not we have inter scope person pretations within the such of the habeas statute incompetency, stifling committed for mental or one would suffocate the writ for prison any judgment confined malisms or hobble its effectiveness with the court, challenge or procedur one who does not con- and manacles arcane scholastic being requirements. speed, viction or his sentence but he is al claims The demand for expiration flexibility, simplicity clearly held the sentence. after evident Wright Miller, C. & A. Federal Practice our decisions the exhaustion (1969) Fay (em- doctrine, Noia, and Procedure § at 584-85 [83 U.S. 391 S. phasis added) (1963) ; Ct. Allen, L.Ed .2d Brown v. 837] 344 U.S. 443 [73 L.Ed. S.Ct. parties witnesses, 5. For the convenience of (1953) ; relitigation 469] the criteria for justice, in the interest of a district court questions, Sain, factual Townsend v. any any transfer civil action other [83 U.S. 293 S.Ct. 770] 9 L.Ed.2d might or district division where it have been (1963) ; prematurity Peyton doctrine, brought. Rowe, [88 U.S. 54 6. The district court of a in which is (1968) ; forum, L.Ed.2d 426] the choice of laying wrong filed a case divi- venue Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court dismiss, sion district shall or if Ky., it be 410 U.S. 484 [93 S.Ct. L.Ed. justice, in the interest of (1973) transfer such ease ; Laird, 2d 443] Strait v. any district or division in which it could 341 [92 S.Ct. 141] 32 L.Ed.2d brought. have been (1972) ; procedural requirements and the corpus hearing, Nelson, a habeas Harris v. Wright Miller, 7. 5 & A. Practice C. Federal supra [394 89 and Procedure cited cases 281]. L.Ed.2d therein.