was lawfully tried by the military court, as we believe he was, then he was subject to the procedures and penalties which the law for the military forces provided. Since we have concluded that he was properly under regulation of military law, he was subject to the authority that included “. . not only the creation of offenses but the fixing of the punishment therefor.” Kinsella v. United States ex rel. Singleton, supra, 361 U.S. at 246, 80 S.Ct. at 303. We, therefore, hold that the District Court properly denied relief and its judgments are affirmed. 1 . The former action was L-1003 in which Chief Judge Stanley appeared to accept the fact that the offenses were not service connected and said the sole issue was the retroactivity of O’Oallahan and held it not re . 1929, 12 L.Ed.2d 1039 (<HOLDING>) ; McNerlin v. Denno, 378 U.S. 575, 84 S.Ct.
holding the rule on the scope of per missible searches incident to arrest announced in chimel v california 395 us 752 89 sct 2034 23 led2d 685 not to be retroactive holding the right to assistance of counsel as announced in gideon v wainwright 372 us 335 83 sct 792 9 led2d 799 to be retroactive holding that indigents have a right to a transcript on appeal as announced in griffin v illinois 351 us 12 76 sct 585 100 led 891 to be retroactive holding the rule that an accused has a right to counsel at any critical confrontation announced in united states v wade 388 us 218 87 sct 1926 18 led2d 1149 and gilbert v california 388 us 263 87 sct 1951 18 led2d 1178 not to be retroactive holding that counsel must be appointed to indigents for purposes of appeal as announced in douglas v california 372 us 353 83 sct 814 9 led2d 811 to be retroactive