Burley v. United States
Decision Date | 08 September 1961 |
Docket Number | No. 6663.,6663. |
Citation | 295 F.2d 317 |
Parties | James G. BURLEY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Eugene Deikman, Denver, Colo., for appellant.
D. L. Giacomini, Denver, Colo. (Donald G. Brotzman, U. S. Atty., Denver, Colo., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, PICKETT and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.
Appellant filed a motion to vacate and set aside a sentence imposed upon him for violation of the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act, 21 U.S.C.A. § 171 et seq. (See Lewis v. United States Burley v. United States, 10 Cir., 277 F.2d 378), asserting that proceedings leading to his conviction were conducted without his presence and in violation of Rule 43, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C. A.,1 and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The motion was filed with the sentencing court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 and the requested relief denied, the trial court holding that "nothing appears in the motion, files and records of this case indicating lack of the fair trial guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment."
Inasmuch as the appellant contended that the record in Criminal Action No. 15945, by which he was convicted and sentenced, did not demonstrate his presence in the courtroom at certain stages of the trial, the prosecution has had certified portions of that record and submitted them as a portion of the record in this appeal. Appellant therefore objects to the consideration of this record on appeal since it was not introduced at a hearing on the motion filed. In fact, no hearing was held, as is permitted by Section 2255, by reason of which appellant makes further complaint.
Clearly, the language of Section 2255 contemplates the denial of hearing and review based on the record of conviction2 and appellant's contention that he is entitled to a hearing in all instances upon the averments of his motion is clearly without merit.
The record reveals that the appellant was present during the examination of the jury, contrary to his claim, and that he was present on each day of the trial which followed.
He complains that he was not present at motion before trial, the trial setting, and matters considered in chambers during the course of the trial. Of these contentions, the trial court stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Simmons v. United States
...v. United States, 296 F.2d 853 (8th Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 825, 82 S.Ct. 840, 7 L.Ed.2d 789 (1962); Burley v. United States, 295 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1961). We then proceeded to empanel a After the jury was empanelled, we took a short recess and, upon returning to the courtroom, ......
-
United States v. Re
...and the trial court correctly denied them a hearing. Simmons v. United States, 302 F.2d 71, 80 (3d Cir. 1962); Burley v. United States, 295 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1961). Appellants argue that the District Judge should have disqualified himself under 28 U.S.C. § 455,4 since he would be a materi......
-
Puckett v. United States
...motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is not entitled to relief. See, e. g., Burley v. United States, 10 Cir., 295 F.2d 317; Williams v. United States, 9 Cir., 307 F.2d 366; Bent v. United States, 8 Cir., 308 F.2d 585; United States v. Berry, 7 Cir......
-
G. Leblanc Corporation v. H. & A. SELMER, INC.
... ... H. & A. SELMER, INC., Defendant-Appellant ... Nos. 13232 and 13233 ... United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit ... November 21, 1962 ... Rehearing Denied December ... ...