Smith v. United States, 27770. Summary Calendar.
| Decision Date | 21 January 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 27770. Summary Calendar.,27770. Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 420 F.2d 690 |
| Parties | Joe SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Joe Smith, pro se.
Ira DeMent, U. S. Atty., William H. Thomas, Asst. U. S. Atty., Montgomery, Ala., for defendant-appellee.
Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.
All the contentions made by appellant in this appeal from the denial of his motion brought under Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 22551 to set aside sentence have been considered and rejected by this court in his direct appeal. See Smith v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 392 F.2d 169; cert. denied 393 U.S. 941, 89 S.Ct. 308, 21 L. Ed.2d 278. The present appeal is therefore frivolous.2
The appeal is dismissed.
1 Although appellant styled his petition "habeas corpus" we will treat it as a § 2255 motion.
2 Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804, Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 526, Part I.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buckelew v. U.S.
...--- U.S. ----, 98 S.Ct. 1876, 55 L.Ed.2d --- (1978); Fuentes v. United States, 455 F.2d 910, 911 (5th Cir. 1972); Smith v. United States, 420 F.2d 690 (5th Cir. 1970). We likewise affirm the disposition of the claims regarding the trial court's off-record comments and conduct, four of which......
-
Fuentes v. United States, 71-2552 Summary Calendar.
...acted upon by this court during the course of their direct appeal. Therefore this contention is deemed frivolous. See Smith v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 420 F.2d 690. However, the second contention of the appellants was raised for the first time below, and the district court failed to fol......