Lopez v. United States, 12439.
| Decision Date | 22 December 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 12439.,12439. |
| Citation | 186 F.2d 707 |
| Parties | LOPEZ v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Robert J. Drewes, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Ernest A. Tolin, U. S. Atty., Norman W. Neukom, Sander L. Johnson and Paul Fitting, Asst. U. S. Atty., all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before BONE and ORR, Circuit Judges, and LEMMON, District Judge.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate a sentence which appellant contends the District Court had no jurisdiction to impose. The motion was made pursuant to the provisions of § 2255, 28 U.S.C.A.
It was stipulated during the argument of the appeal that the appellant is not in custody under the sentence he is attacking. In fact, the said sentence has been served. Appellant is now in custody under a separate, distinct and unrelated sentence.
Upon authority of Crow v. United States, 9 Cir., 186 F.2d 704, the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shelton v. United States
...F. 2d 247, 248; United States v. Bradford, 2 Cir., 194 F.2d 197, 200; Crow v. United States, 9 Cir., 186 F.2d 704, 705; Lopez v. United States, 9 Cir., 186 F.2d 707; Owens v. United States, 5 Cir., 174 F.2d 469, 470, concurring opinion of Judge Sibley. 8 Biron v. Collins, 5 Cir., 145 F.2d 7......
-
Matysek v. United States
...of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or statutes. United States v. Bradford, 194 F.2d 197 (2d Cir. 1952); Lopez v. United States, 186 F.2d 707 (9th Cir. 1950); Crow v. United States, 186 F.2d 704, 706 (9th Cir. 1950). Our circuit rule has at times been criticized, at least by indirect......
-
Duggins v. United States, 12908.
...is attacking by a proceeding under Sec. 2255, he is not in custody under that sentence and cannot maintain the proceeding. Lopez v. United States, 9 Cir., 186 F.2d 707; United States v. Bradford, 2 Cir., 194 F. 2d 197, 200; Fooshee v. United States, 5 Cir., 203 F.2d 247. It has likewise bee......
-
Russell v. United States
...the discussion in Hoffman is dictum. We do not agree. The Government also contends that the contrary result was reached in Lopez v. United States, 9 Cir., 186 F.2d 707. If that is true Lopez is no longer the law in this circuit in view of 5 In so stipulating, the parties took into account t......