*412OPINION

This is an appeal from an order entered in a habeas corpus proceeding remanding appellant to custody for extradition.

The warrant of the Governor of Texas reciting that appellant stands charged by complaint, warrant, and supporting papers with the crime of Forgery in the State of Oklahoma was introduced into evidence. The warrant is regular on its face and is sufficient for extradition. The supporting papers found in the record do not overcome the prima facie case presented by the warrant. Ex Parte Green, Tex.Cr.App. 415 S.W.2d 424, May 17, 1967; Ex Parte Escarrega, Tex.Cr.App., 388 S.W.2d 192. See Article 51.13, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., Note 8, and the cases collated.

The district judge did not err in granting extradition. The judgment is affirmed.

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellant insists that we were in error in holding that the supporting papers found in the record did not overcome the prima facie case made by the introduction in evidence of the executive warrant, regular on its face, because the supporting papers were not properly authenticated by reason of the difference in dates of certain certificates therein.

We find no merit in the contention. The supporting papers were introduced by the state. The state was not required to introduce them in evidence. The supporting papers appear to be properly authenticated, but — assuming that they are not — appellant is in no position to complain, as such fact would not defeat the prima facie case made by the introduction in evidence of the executive warrant. Ex parte Hoover, 164 Tex. Cr.R. 251, 298 S.W.2d 579.

The motion for rehearing ,is overruled.