Hoffman v. United States, 18809.
Decision Date | 29 January 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 18809.,18809. |
Citation | 327 F.2d 489 |
Parties | George Edward HOFFMAN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
George E. Hoffman, in pro. per.
Cecil F. Poole, U. S. Atty., and Jerrold M. Ladar, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before BARNES, JERTBERG and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court for the Northern District of California denying appellant's petition for release under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, from the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas.
Appellant sought to challenge the judgment of that district court, and his previous sentence, on the ground there had been an illegal search of, and illegal seizure of certain evidence in, his premises in San Francisco, after police had interrogated a co-defendant in Sacramento, California.
We quote from the order below denying the petition:
Appellant is confined for a period of five years, by reason of sentence imposed on him on April 6, 1960 — a result of his plea of guilty to the Colorado indictment (No. 37151); five years consecutive thereto (or a total of ten years) by reason of his plea of guilty to the Georgia indictment (No. 37107); five years by reason of his plea of guilty to the Florida indictment (No. 37168), concurrent to his original sentence of five years, and finally, five years, concurrent to his Colorado sentence, by reason of his guilty plea to the California indictment (No. 37075).
Appellant does not question the validity of his confinement under the first three sentences mentioned, i. e., the Colorado, the Georgia or the Florida indictments and sentences.
Thus we do not reach the question whether in a § 2255 proceeding, a criminal defendant may question the search and seizure of evidence illegally obtained. See Gaitan v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Cox
...jeopardy. (footnotes omitted and emphasis supplied). See, Hughes v. United States, 371 F.2d 694 (8th Cir. 1967); Hoffman v. United States, 327 F.2d 489 (9th Cir. 1964); Thomas v. United States, 290 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1961), cert. den. 368 U.S. 964, 82 S.Ct. 446, 7 L.Ed.2d 401 It would appea......
-
United States v. Warden of Rikers Island Penitentiary
...non-jurisdictional defects and defenses,") relying on United States v. Spada, 331 F.2d 995 (2d Cir. 1964) (dicta); Hoffman v. United States, 327 F.2d 489, 490 (9th Cir. 1964) (dicta); United States v. Miller, 293 F.2d 697 (2d Cir. 1961) (alternative holding); United States v. Parrino, 212 F......
-
United States v. Warden of Attica State Prison
...g., Winston v. United States, 224 F.2d 337 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 916, 76 S.Ct. 201, 100 L.Ed. 803 (1955); Hoffman v. United States, 327 F.2d 489 (9th Cir. 1964). 6 Section 813-d establishes the time for making and determining the defendant's motions, and also provides that if a ......
-
United States v. Sepe, 72-1352.
...jeopardy. (footnotes omitted and emphasis supplied).' See, Hughes v. United States, 371 F. 2d 694 (8th Cir. 1967); Hoffman v. United States, 327 F.2d 489 (9th Cir. 1964); Thomas v. United States, 290 F. 2d 696 (9th Cir. 1961), cert. den. 368 U.S. 964, 82 S.Ct. 446, 7 L.Ed.2d 401 (1962). * *......