Miller v. United States, 15860.
| Decision Date | 27 May 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 15860.,15860. |
| Parties | Bernard G. MILLER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Bernard Miller, in pro. per.
Charles P. Moriarty, U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., Charles W. Billinghurst, Asst. U. S. Atty., Tacoma, Wash., for appellee.
Before STEPHENS, Chief Judge, and DENMAN and FEE, Circuit Judges.
This is another of those 28 U.S.C. § 2255 cases like Toliver v. United States, 9 Cir., 249 F.2d 804 in which it is obvious beyond question that no jurisdiction exists where the Government has sought a determination of the merits of a convict's contention as to his guilt.
The very first sentence of Section 2255 provides that only "A prisoner in custody * * * claiming the right to be released * * * may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence." Nowhere in Miller's motion does he claim the right to be released from his present custody on a five year sentence commenced only 20 months ago.
In this case Miller was convicted and sentenced on July 30, 1955 on three counts of an indictment based upon 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (b) and (d). The first sentence is for five years, for entering a federal bank with intent to rob it, the second for five years for actually committing the robbery, and the third sentence for 20 years for assault committed during the robbery, putting a life in jeopardy. The sentences were to be served concurrently.
Miller's motion admits the validity of the second five-year sentence he is serving for the actual robbery of the bank. What the motion seeks is to have the first five-year and the 20-year sentence declared invalid.
This court, beginning in 1950, in Crow v. United States, 9 Cir., 186 F.2d 704, 706, has consistently held:
This was followed by Lopez v. United States, 9 Cir., 186 F.2d 707; Oughton v. United States, 9 Cir., 215 F.2d 578, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matysek v. United States
...v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131, 55 S.Ct. 24, 79 L.Ed. 238 (1934); Smith v. United States, 259 F.2d 125 (9th Cir. 1958); Miller v. United States, 256 F.2d 501 (9th Cir. 1958); Toliver v. United States, 249 F.2d 804 (9th Cir. 1957); Hoffman v. United States, 244 F.2d 378 (9th Cir. 1957); Williams v. U......
-
Heflin v. United States
...9 Cir., 236 F.2d 894; Hoffman v. United States, 9 Cir., 244 F.2d 378; Toliver v. United States, 9 Cir., 249 F.2d 804; Miller v. United States, 9 Cir., 256 F.2d 501; Smith v. United States, 9 Cir., 259 F.2d Although believing that relief in this case was not available under § 2255, I think, ......
-
Russell v. United States
...451, 3 L.Ed.2d 407. Thus, in a motion filed under that section, the right to be released at that time must be claimed. Miller v. United States, 9 Cir., 256 F.2d 501. Russell did not expressly claim this right in his motion and he could not make such a claim if he were still serving either o......
-
Jones v. United States
...Court was without jurisdiction to entertain this motion on the merits. In this respect, the United States relies upon Miller v. United States, 9 Cir., 1958, 256 F.2d 501; Toliver v. United States, 9 Cir., 1957, 249 F. 2d 804; Hoffman v. United States, 9 Cir., 1957, 244 F.2d 378; Williams v.......