Jacobanis v. United States, 5377.
| Decision Date | 13 June 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 5377.,5377. |
| Citation | 256 F.2d 485 |
| Parties | David S. JACOBANIS, Petitioner, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
David S. Jacobanis, pro se, on motion.
Anthony Julian, U. S. Atty., and William J. Koen and Charles F. Barrett, Asst. U. S. Attys., Boston, Mass., for appellee.
Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY and HARTIGAN, Circuit Judges.
There awaits our disposition a motion by David S. Jacobanis for the appointment of counsel. Though Jacobanis has not prosecuted this appeal in forma pauperis, because he is not a citizen of the United States, an affidavit attached to his motion affirms that he is "indigent" and wholly without legal knowledge necessary to conduct his appeal.
It seems that on October 27, 1952, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, after verdict of guilty, entered judgment and commitment against Jacobanis for a term of twenty-five years' imprisonment on a charge of bank robbery and incidental crimes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113. Jacobanis took an appeal from this judgment of conviction, but this court on April 17, 1953, entered the following order: "Upon consideration of motion of appellee to docket and dismiss, and of memorandum of appellant in opposition thereto, It is ordered that this case be docketed, and It is further ordered that the appeal herein be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for want of diligent prosecution."
Under date of March 23, 1958, Jacobanis, writing from Alcatraz, California, addressed a lengthy and rather confusing letter or document to Chief Judge Sweeney. This letter, proceeding upon the erroneous assumption that the district court had granted a new trial to Jacobanis' co-defendant Theodore Green, asked the court of its own motion to "grant me the same relief granted Green, whatever that may have been." Following various allegations of misconduct by the prosecuting officials, Jacobanis concluded with a prayer that the court "grant me a new trial", which of course the court had long since lost power to grant. Rule 33, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C. Other allegations seem directed toward a revival of the old appeal from the judgment of conviction, which the court of appeals had dismissed in 1953. This part of the letter was of no concern to the district court. Certain other allegations in the document or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diamen v. US
...filed after the expiration of that period. See, e.g., Guinan v. United States, 6 F.3d 468, 470-71 (7th Cir. 1993); Jacobanis v. United States, 256 F.2d 485, 486 (1st Cir.1958). The two-year limit is strictly enforced. Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 409, 113 S.Ct. 853, 122 L.Ed.2d 203 (19......
-
Lott v. United States
...filed, no matter how the motion may be treated. Cf. Martin v. United States, 10 Cir., 1959, 263 F.2d 516; Jacobanis v. United States, 1 Cir., 1958, 256 F.2d 485. We reach, finally, the conclusion that the jurisdiction of this Court has not been invoked by timely notices of appeal. So conclu......
-
Ross v. Heyne
...violation filed by a convicted defendant where he made the conscious choice to conceal evidence of perjury at trial. Jacobanis v. United States, 256 F.2d 485 (1st Cir. 1958). Although this "waiver theory" has some arguable validity, this Court cannot ignore the clear holdings in Napue and G......
-
Hill v. United States, 13741.
...of appeal. Rule 37(a), Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A.; United States v. Isabella, 2 Cir., 251 F.2d 223, 226; Jacobanis v. United States, 1 Cir., 256 F.2d 485. The evidence is overwhelmingly against appellant's contention that he told any custodial agent that he wanted to prepare a......