Long v. United States
Citation | 296 F.2d 148 |
Decision Date | 08 November 1961 |
Docket Number | No. 16779.,16779. |
Parties | Martin R. LONG, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Martin R. Long, pro se.
F. Russell Millin, U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., and John S. Boyer, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., were on the brief for appellee.
Before VOGEL, VAN OOSTERHOUT and BLACKMUN, Circuit Judges.
Martin R. Long appeals herein from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri overruling his motion to vacate sentence filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.
On February 11, 1954, a two-count indictment was returned against the appellant. The first count charged a violation of the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312. Such count was dismissed. The second count charged a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 752, in which it was alleged:
At the time of indictment and prior to trial appellant had been serving a sentence in the Arizona State Prison at Florence, Arizona. After trial herein he was returned to complete service of such sentence. On July 5, 1960, being released therefrom, he was transferred to the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, where he began serving the sentence under attack here.
On February 10, 1961, appellant filed his first motion to vacate sentence under § 2255. This motion was overruled by the District Court by order dated February 24, 1961. On March 21, 1961, appellant filed a second motion, supported by an affidavit, for vacation of sentence in forma pauperis. Such motion was overruled by the District Court on March 22, 1961. Appellant's notice of appeal to this court covered both applications jointly. In an order dated May 26, 1961, this court denied Long's application to appeal in forma pauperis from the District Court's order of February 24, 1961, for the reason that the question sought to be raised represented on the face of the record a matter which would be cognizable only on an appeal from the conviction. Long's application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis from the District Court's order of March 22, 1961, was granted. It is that order which is on review here.
Appellant was indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced under 18 U.S. C.A. § 752, which provides:
It is the appellant's contention that the foregoing statute is applicable only to "prison officials and outsiders" and accordingly, he being an inmate confined in the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jones v. United States
...against it and to plead it in bar to future prosecution and is not subject to collateral attack by the pending motion. Long v. United States, 8 Cir., 296 F.2d 148. Grounds numbered 5 and 6, above, were raised by petitioner in his prior motion as specific omissions of his counsel resulting i......
-
United States v. Rudinsky, 20527.
...him intelligently to defend against it, and to plead it as a bar to future prosecutions for the same offense. Long v. United States, 296 F. 2d 148, 150-151 (8th Cir. 1961). Secondly, appellant argues that the trial court committed plain error in admitting into evidence five exhibits lacking......
-
Williams v. United States
...him to defend himself against the charge and to plead the defense of double jeopardy in bar to a subsequent prosecution. Long v. United States, 8 Cir., 296 F.2d 148. It is obvious that the omission of certain formal words from an indictment is not such a defect as to make it impossible for ......
-
U.S.A v. Mccauley, Case No. 07-4009-01-CR-C-NKL
...meets sufficiency requirements and that "[m]ore may not be expected or required." [Doc. # 231, at 2 (quoting Long v. United States, 296 F.2d 148, 150-51 (8th Cir. 1961))]. Thus, Counts One and Twenty-Eight of the indictment each sufficiently allege a single conspiracy that occurred during a......