Bentley v. United States
Citation | 431 F.2d 250 |
Decision Date | 02 September 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 19996.,19996. |
Parties | George Edward BENTLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
George Edward Bentley, in pro. per.
Robert B. Krupansky, U. S. Atty., Robert W. Jones, First Asst. U. S. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee.
Before EDWARDS and McCREE, Circuit Judges, and KALBFLEISCH, District Judge.*
The sole question posed by this appeal is whether or not appellant is entitled to be furnished a copy of the transcript of his trial in order to search for as yet unasserted grounds for filing a motion for postconviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1964). Appellant relies for an affirmative answer upon Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1955), and its progeny.
The background of this case is accurately set forth in the memorandum opinion of the District Judge from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio who denied this petition:
There is no doubt that the District Court had a right to conclude that this court had decided the issue in this case so as to support denial of the transcript under the facts stated above. Ketcherside v. United States, 317 F.2d 807 (6th Cir. 1963); Dorsey v. United States, 333 F.2d 1015 (6th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 994, 85 S.Ct. 711, 13 L.Ed.2d 613 (1965); Mundy v. Henderson, 416 F.2d 432 (6th Cir. 1969). See also Harless v. United States, 329 F.2d 397 (5th Cir. 1964); United States v. Shoaf, 341 F.2d 832 (4th Cir. 1964).
The impact of the United States Constitution upon this problem has, however, been the subject of further elaboration since this series of cases began. Lane v. Brown, 372 U.S. 477, 83 S.Ct. 768, 9 L. Ed.2d 892 (1963); Long v. District Court of Iowa, 385 U.S. 192, 87 S.Ct. 362, 17 L.Ed.2d 290 (1966); Gardner v. California, 393 U.S. 367, 89 S.Ct. 580, 21 L. Ed.2d 601 (1969).
In Long v. District Court of Iowa, the general principles upon which the Supreme Court is proceeding are set forth as follows:
Very recently, in Wade v. Wilson, 396 U.S. 282, 90 S.Ct. 501, 24 L.Ed.2d 470 (1970), the Supreme Court specifically reserved decision on the exact question posed by this case:
Wade v. Wilson, supra at 286, 90 S.Ct. at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Maccollom v. U.S., 73--1659
...portion of the transcript which he requests. See, e.g., Cowan v. United States, 445 F.2d 855 (5th Cir. 1971); Bentley v. ,United States, 431 F.2d 250 (6th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 920, 91 S.Ct. 907, 27 L.Ed.2d 823 (1971); Benthiem v. United States, 403 F.2d 1009 (1st Cir. 1968), c......
-
Pettway v. American Cast Iron Pipe Company
......v. . AMERICAN CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, . United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor. . No. 73-1163. . United States Court ......
-
U.S. v. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc.
...... 625 F.2d 918 . 20 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1345, . 21 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 30,286 . UNITED STATES of America and Equal Employment Opportunity . Commission, Appellees and Cross-Appellants, . ......
-
United States v. Allen
...No. 00-1527, 2000 WL 1888734, at *1 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing United States v. MacCollum, 426 U.S. 317, 325 (1976); Bentley v. United States, 431 F.2d 250, 254 (6th Cir. 1970)). Similarly, as to the other documents Defendant requests:There is no support for the proposition that a defendant is......