This appeal was heard upon the transcript of record, and upon the argument of counsel and upon briefs on behalf of the respective parties;

And it appearing that the appellant, Thomas Tecumseh Plummer, has not exhausted remedies available to him in the courts of the State of Ohio, 28 U.S.Code, § 2254; Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 70 S.Ct. 587, 94 L.Ed. 761, and it being well settled that a writ of habeas corpus can not be used as a substitute for an appeal from a judgment of conviction in the State court, Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U.S. 101, 106, 18 S.Ct. 805, 43 L.Ed. 91; U. S. ex rel. Kennedy v. Tyler, 269 U.S. 13, 19, 46 S.Ct. 1, 70 L.Ed. 138.

It Is Ordered that the judgment of the District Court denying appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus be and is affirmed. .