Lenhardt v. United States
| Decision Date | 09 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 27912.,27912. |
| Citation | 416 F.2d 1254 |
| Parties | Roberto A. LENHARDT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Roberto A. Lenhardt, pro se.
Charles L. Goodson, U. S. Atty., Theodore E. Smith, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellee.
Before WISDOM, COLEMAN and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
In this pro se case appellant has failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, F.R.A.P., and it is therefore appropriate to dispose of this case summarily pursuant to Rule 9(c) (2) of this Court. Stout v. Broom, 5th Cir. 1969, 406 F.2d 758.
Appellant is presently incarcerated in the federal penitentiary in Atlanta, having been convicted on his plea of guilty to three counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1709, theft of mail by a postal employee. He was convicted and sentenced in the District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. He has filed a petition for habeas corpus in the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. In this petition appellant alleges denial of due process in that his sentence is indeterminable owing to the confusion of the sentencing court. The district court dismissed the petition, stating that the proper remedy for appellant is a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed in the sentencing court. We agree.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beras v. Johnson
...on a federal sentence." Cox v. Warden, Fed. Det. Ctr. , 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990) ; see also Lenhardt v. United States , 416 F.2d 1254, 1255 (5th Cir. 1969) (per curiam). Beras acknowledges that he cannot successfully file a § 2255 motion because he has previously filed and lost s......
-
Walker v. United States, 28882 Summary Calendar.
...case is decided without oral argument. 2 United States v. Hayman, 1952, 342 U.S. 205, 72 S.Ct. 263, 96 L.Ed. 232; Lenhardt v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 416 F. 2d 1254; Accardi v. Blackwell, 5 Cir. 1969, 412 F.2d 911; Wood v. Blackwell, 5 Cir. 1968, 402 F.2d 62, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1060......
-
U.S. v. Flores
...remedy is under § 2255, not 28 U.S.C. § 2241, since the alleged errors occurred at or prior to sentencing. Lenhardt v. U. S., 416 F.2d 1254, 1255 (5th Cir. 1969). This being so the proceedings were properly filed in the sentencing court and not in the district court in Kansas where Flores w......