Meadows v. United States, 12553.
| Decision Date | 07 February 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 12553.,12553. |
| Citation | 232 F.2d 312 |
| Parties | Gene A. MEADOWS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Philip S. Smith, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.
Wendell A. Miles, Grand Rapids, Mich., for appellee.
Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and McALLISTER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
The above cause coming on to be heard upon the transcript of record, the briefs of the parties, and the argument of counsel in open court, and the court being duly advised,
Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered that the judgment be affirmed on the opinion of the district court, 140 F.Supp. 184, denying appellant's motion to vacate and set aside his pleas, convictions, and sentences, without prejudice to the right of appellant to apply to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons for determination of his mental competency under Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 4245.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Thomas
...a ruling by the District Judge, in a Section 2255 proceeding. In United States v. Meadows, D.C.W.D.Mich., 140 F.Supp. 184, affirmed 6 Cir., 232 F.2d 312, this Court held that the proper procedure for raising the issue of mental incompetency at the time of trial was under Section 4245, Title......
-
Handlon v. United States
...accused. Cf. Broadus v. Lowry, 6 Cir., 245 F.2d 304; United States v. Meadows, D.C.W.D.Mich., 140 F.Supp. 184, affirmed Meadows v. United States, 6 Cir., 232 F.2d 312; Dodd v. United States, 10 Cir., 222 F.2d The case of Bishop v. United States, 350 U.S. 961, 76 S.Ct. 440, 100 L.Ed. 835, re......
-
Broadus v. Lowry
...statutory procedure for presenting such an issue. We held in United States v. Meadows, D.C.W.D.Mich., 140 F.Supp. 184, affirmed, 6 Cir., 232 F.2d 312, that this procedure should be followed instead of attempting to raise the issue by a proceeding under Sec. 2255, Title 28 In the present hab......
-
Davis v. United States
...of appellant to renew his motion, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. United States v. Meadows, D.C., 140 F. Supp. 184, affirmed 6 Cir., 232 F.2d 312; Broadus v. Lowry, 6 Cir., 245 F.2d 304, certiorari denied 355 U.S. 858, 78 S.Ct. 88, 2 L.Ed.2d 65. See also Gregori v. United States, 5 Ci......