Rice v. Clemmer, 7368.
| Decision Date | 01 April 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 7368.,7368. |
| Parties | William RICE, Appellant, v. Donald CLEMMER and Paul F. Pegelow, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
William Rice, pro se, on brief.
A. Andrew Giangreco, Asst. U. S. Atty., Arlington, Va. (L. S. Parsons, Jr., U. S. Atty., Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and SOBELOFF, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant was convicted of grand larceny in the District of Columbia and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment which he is now serving in the District of Columbia Department of Corrections Reformatory at Lorton, Virginia. He contends that he was improperly convicted because he had been improperly removed from another jurisdiction for trial, because his trial had been unduly delayed and because improper testimony had been received against him. Prior to filing the application for the writ of habeas corpus, he had filed motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence and this motion had been denied.1 Upon this denial of relief by the sentencing court, the court below was without jurisdiction to entertain the petition for habeas corpus, unless it appeared that the remedy by motion in the sentencing court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention". There was no allegation in the petition from which it could be inferred that the remedy was inadequate or ineffective for this purpose. The fact that decision was rendered against him on the motion means merely that he failed to convince the court that he was entitled to prevail, not that the motion was "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention". The legality of the detention was tested by the motion and was found proper. There is nothing to indicate that the motion did not provide an adequate test. The petition for habeas corpus was properly dismissed. Meyers v. Welch, 4 Cir., 179 F.2d 707, 708; Meyers v. United States, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 320, 181 F.2d 802; Bozell v. Welch, 4 Cir., 203 F.2d 711.
Affirmed.
1 Appellant alleges and the court below found that motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 had been made. The U. S. Attorney states in his brief that the remedy under that statute has not been exhausted. In either case, the court below was without jurisdiction to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The statement in the brief of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. United States
...of his detention"; and nothing of the sort appears here. Gaylord v. Clemmer, 242 F.2d 872, 873 (4th Cir. 1957). In Rice v. Clemmer, 242 F.2d 870 (4th Cir. 1957), cited in the Gaylord case, supra, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit pointed out that: "The fact that decision was rende......
-
Rawls v. United States
...read and considered: Meyers v. Welch, 4th Cir. 1950, 179 F.2d 707; Hildebrandt v. Swope, 9th Cir. 1956, 229 F. 2d 582; Rice v. Clemmer, 4th Cir. 1957, 242 F.2d 870, cert. denied 354 U.S. 924, 77 S.Ct. 1385, 1 L.Ed.2d 1438 (cited in our Anderson opinion, supra); Overman v. Wilkinson, 5th Cir......
-
Anderson v. Settle
...Weber v. Steele (8th Cir., 1951), 191 F. 2d 815; United States ex rel. Josey v. Humphrey (3rd Cir., 1954) 210 F.2d 826; Rice v. Clemmer, (4th Cir., 1957), 242 F.2d 870, cert. den. 354 U.S. 924, 77 S.Ct. 1385, 1 L.Ed.2d 1438 (1957); Barrett v. United States (10th Cir., 1960), 285 F.2d 758; M......
-
Hall v. United States, 7471.
...in the sentencing court under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 was "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention". Rice v. Clemmer, 4 Cir., 242 F.2d 870; Gaylord v. Clemmer, 4 Cir., 242 F.2d 872; Bozell v. Welch, 4 Cir., 203 F.2d 711; Myers v. Welch, 4 Cir., 179 F.2d 707, 708; Myers v.......