DiPiazza v. United States, 71-1992.
| Decision Date | 12 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1992.,71-1992. |
| Citation | 471 F.2d 719 |
| Parties | Sam DiPIAZZA, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Louis A. DiRosa, New Orleans, La., for appellant; Guy Johnson, New Orleans, La., on brief.
William W. Milligan, U. S. Atty., Byron E. Trapp, Asst. U. S. Atty., Cincinnati, Ohio, Robert J. Vedatsky, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee; Henry E. Petersen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sidney M. Glazer, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, WEICK, Circuit Judge, and BRATCHER, District Judge.*
Appellant was convicted in a jury trial in the Southern District of Ohio of seven counts of using interstate facilities to promote an illegal gambling enterprise and one count of conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952, and 371. The conviction was affirmed by this court. 415 F.2d 99 (1969), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 949, 91 S.Ct. 1606, 29 L.Ed.2d 119 rehearing denied, 403 U.S. 924, 91 S.Ct. 2221, 29 L.Ed.2d 702 (1971).
Appellant then filed a motion to vacate sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, on the grounds that the District Judge's charge to the jury was incorrect. He appeals from the denial of this motion.
It is well settled in this circuit that a motion to vacate is not a proper substitute for appeal. Petro v. United States, 368 F.2d 807 (6th Cir. 1968); Hill v. United States, 223 F.2d 699, 701 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 867, 76 S.Ct. 113, 100 L.Ed. 768 (1955). Furthermore, jury instructions are not subject to attack under § 2255. Hollbrook v. United States, 441 F.2d 371 (6th Cir. 1971).
Affirmed.
* Honorable Rhodes Bratcher, Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Watson
...to vacate under § 2255 is not a substitute for direct appeal. United States v. Duhart, 511 F.2d 7 (6th Cir. 1975); DiPiazza v. United States, 471 F.2d 719 (6th Cir. 1973). Absentmanifest injustice or special circumstances such as a change in the law, § 2255 motions will be dismissed summari......
-
United States v. Baltimore, Case No. 3:07-cr-173
...to vacate under § 2255 is not a substitute for direct appeal. United States v. Duhart, 511 F.2d 7 (6th Cir. 1975); DiPiazza v. United States, 471 F.2d 719 (6th Cir. 1973). Absent manifest injustice or special circumstances such as a change in the law, § 2255 motions will be dismissed summar......
-
United States v. Alebbini
... ... § 2255 is not a substitute for direct appeal. United ... States v. Duhart, 511 F.2d 7 (6 th Cir. 1975); ... DiPiazza v. United States , 471 F.2d 719 ... (6 th Cir. 1973). Absent manifest injustice or ... special circumstances such as a change in the ... ...
-
United States v. Murray
...to vacate under § 2255 is not a substitute for direct appeal. United States v. Duhart, 511 F.2d 7 (6th Cir. 1975); DiPiazza v. United States, 471 F.2d 719 (6th Cir. 1973). Absent manifest injustice or special circumstances such as a change in the law, § 2255 motions will be dismissed summar......