22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T461,This is an appeal taken from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Southern Division, denying Lipscomb’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant claims he has served the following judgment of imprisonment entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri : Appellant has served one sentence and contends that the sentences run concurrently because of the use of the word “with” in the phrase “such terms to run consecutively and cumulatively and not concurrently with each other”. He cites our opinion in Bledsoe v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 154 F.2d 458 , 459 in which we stated: The word “with” in the Bledsoe case is not used along with the phrase “and not concurrently”. We think the intent to create successive sentences is adequately stated. The controlling principle is announced in United States v. Daugherty, 269 U.S. 360 , 46 S.Ct. 156 , 70 L.Ed. 309 , in which the same argument as here presented was rejected. The judgment in that case read so far as pertinent: The court held: The judgment is affirmed.24:T486,

This is an appeal taken from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Southern Division, denying Lipscomb’s application for a writ of habeas corpus.

Appellant claims he has served the following judgment of imprisonment entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri :

Appellant has served one sentence and contends that the sentences run concurrently because of the use of the word “with” in the phrase “such terms to run consecutively and cumulatively and not concurrently with each other”. He cites our opinion in Bledsoe v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 154 F.2d 458 , 459 in which we stated:

The word “with” in the Bledsoe case is not used along with the phrase “and not concurrently”. We think the intent to create successive sentences is adequately stated. The controlling principle is announced in United States v. Daugherty, 269 U.S. 360 , 46 S.Ct. 156 , 70 L.Ed. 309 , in which the same argument as here presented was rejected.

The judgment in that case read so far as pertinent:

The court held:

The judgment is affirmed.