The opinion
BIGGS, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
The decision in this case overrules United States ex rel. Auld v. Warden, 3 Cir., 1951, 187 F.2d 615 , sub silentio, for here, as the majority opinion points out, “there has not yet been such an exhaustion of state remedies as Section 2254 of Title 28 U.S.C. requires before a federal court shall discharge a state prisoner pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus”. I would vacate the judgment and would remand with the direction to the court below to allow the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to exhaust his state remedies, retaining jurisdiction and staying the execution of the state sentence in the meantime. Comity between the state and federal processes requires this result.