Coronado v. United States, 21844.
| Decision Date | 09 March 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 21844.,21844. |
| Parties | Gilbert Salas CORONADO, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Gilbert Salas Coronado, pro se.
James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., Woodrow Seals, U. S. Atty., for appellee.
Before BROWN and BELL, Circuit Judges, and HUNTER, District Judge.
Coronado appeals from the dismissal of his motion for a declaratory judgment filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2201 and F.R.Civ.P. 57 to review the validity of his conviction on the first count of a two-count indictment for the offense of acquiring and facilitating the transportation and concealment after importation of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 174. Judge Ingraham declined to entertain the motion as one for declaratory judgment, but instead considered it properly as one under § 2255. However regarded, there is no merit to Coronado's contention.
His argument is that the evidence against him was obtained by entrapment and was therefore inadmissible under Mapp v. Ohio, 1961, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081. This is but another way of presenting the matter of entrapment, which is a separate and complete defense when made out, but which the jury in this case with ample record basis found to be wanting. It was also passed upon by this Court in affirming the conviction. Coronado v. United States, 5 Cir., 1961, 266 F.2d 719, cert. denied, 361 U.S. 851, 80 S.Ct. 112, 4 L.Ed. 2d 90, and in two prior § 2255 motions. The novelty here is in linking the defense of entrapment with Mapp v. Ohio, and presenting it in the form of an action for declaratory judgment — apparently to avoid that part of § 2255 which permits the district judge to refuse successive motions raising the same issue. Here the complaint is the same as that previously litigated and many times decided in proceedings which met the full requirements of Sanders v. United States, 1963, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed. 2d 148, and it is still without merit.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Luttrell v. El Paso Cnty.
...for allowing a state or federal prisoner to use the declaratory judgment act as a post-conviction remedy) (citing Coronado v. United States , 341 F.2d 918-19 (5th Cir. 1965) ); Sinclair v. State , 199 Md. App. 130, 140, 20 A.3d 192, 198 (2011) (ruling that plaintiff could not file a declara......
-
Luttrell v. El Paso Cnty.
...for allowing a state or federal prisoner to use the declaratory judgment act as a post-conviction remedy) (citing Coronado v. United States, 341 F.2d 918-19 (5th Cir. 1965)); Sinclair v. State, 199 Md. App. 130, 140, 20 A.3d 192, 198 (2011) (ruling that plaintiff could not file a declarator......
-
Booker v. State of Arkansas
...Gajewski v. United States, 368 F.2d 533, 534 (8 Cir. 1965), cert. denied 386 U.S. 913, 87 S.Ct. 865, 17 L.Ed.2d 786; Coronado v. United States, 341 F.2d 918 (5 Cir. 1965), cert. denied 381 U.S. 943, 85 S.Ct. 1782, 14 L.Ed.2d 3. Habeas corpus. If Booker's petition is to be considered as one ......
-
Clausell v. Turner
...an alternative to a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1964). The Fifth Circuit is in agreement, see Coronado v. United States, 341 F.2d 918 (5th Cir. 1965), and the Sixth Circuit, though dealing with state convictions, apparently is of the same view. In a line of per curiam ......