Newman v. United States

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
CitationNewman v. United States, 184 F.2d 275, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 419 (D.C. Cir. 1950)
Decision Date31 July 1950
Docket NumberMisc. No. 215.
PartiesNEWMAN v. UNITED STATES.

James Edward Howard Newman, pro se.

George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty., and Joseph M. Howard, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., for the United States.

Before FAHY, WASHINGTON and BAZELON, Circuit Judges.

Writ of Certiorari Denied January 15, 1951. See 71 S.Ct. 352.

PER CURIAM.

We have before us a petition for reconsideration of an order of this court denying leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

Petitioner, James Newman, on January 24, 1947, was sentenced in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to imprisonment for five to fifteen years upon his plea of guilty to charges of housebreaking and larceny. On March 29, 1949, the District Court denied Newman's motion to vacate sentence, under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255,1 in which he alleged, inter alia, that his arrest had been illegal, and that a confession given by him was inadmissible because given while he was held without being taken before a committing officer. The trial court denied the motion to vacate, and subsequently denied leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, certifying that the appeal was not taken in good faith. A later petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis addressed to this court was denied by us. The instant petition seeks reconsideration of that order.

Leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is a statutory privilege which may not be had "if the trial court certifies in writing that it the appeal is not taken in good faith," unless "the adverse certificate * * * was made without warrant or was itself not in good faith."2 It appears that the correctness of the action of the trial court both on the motion to vacate and on the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is beyond question. Petitioner's sentence and present confinement resulted not from his alleged illegal arrest and confinement, but rather from the judgment of conviction on his plea of guilty. McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819, is inapplicable. Blood v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 150 F.2d 640; Roscoe v. United States, 6 Cir., 148 F.2d 333, certiorari denied 325 U.S. 890, 65 S.Ct. 1581, 89 L.Ed. 2003. See also Redmon v. Squier, 9 Cir., 162 F.2d 195. The petition for reconsideration is accordingly

Denied.

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
18 cases
  • Walker v. State
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • November 7, 1968
    ...den. 357 U.S. 932, 78 S.Ct. 1377, 2 L.Ed.2d 1374; United States v. Williams, 212 F.2d 786 (7th Cir. 1954); Newman v. United States, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 419, 184 F.2d 275 (1950), cert. den. 340 U.S. 921, 71 S.Ct. 352, 95 L.Ed. 665.2 Davis v. United States, 347 F.2d 374 (9th Cir. 1965); 21 Am.Jur......
  • West v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • April 1, 1954
    ...States, 195 F.2d 517 (4th Cir.), certiorari denied, 343 U.S. 980, 72 S.Ct. 1081, 96 L.Ed. 1371 (1952); Newman v. United States, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 419, 184 F.2d 275 (D.C.Cir.1950), certiorari denied, 340 U.S. 921, 71 S.Ct. 352, 95 L.Ed. 665 (1951); Wheeler v. Reid, 84 U.S.App. D.C. 180, 175 F.......
  • Gerringer v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • March 15, 1954
    ...v. United States, 4 Cir., 195 F. 2d 517, certiorari denied, 1952, 343 U.S. 980, 72 S.Ct. 1081, 96 L.Ed. 1371; Newman v. United States, 1950, 87 U.S.App. D.C. 419, 184 F.2d 275, certiorari denied 1951, 340 U.S. 921, 71 S.Ct. 352, 95 L. Ed. 665; Wheeler v. Reid, 1948, 84 U.S. App.D.C. 180, 17......
  • Davis v. United States, 11216.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • June 28, 1954
    ...to appeal by the district court was arbitrary or unwarranted. Higgins v. Steele, 8 Cir., 195 F.2d 366, 369; Newman v. United States, 87 U.S. App.D.C. 419, 184 F.2d 275, 276. In substance appellant's motion to set aside his conviction and sentence alleges (1) that the arresting officers proc......
  • Get Started for Free