U.S. v. Sappington, 75--1678
| Citation | 527 F.2d 508 |
| Decision Date | 18 December 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--1678,75--1678 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Daniel Lee SAPPINGTON, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
Lawrence O. Willbrand, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
David Rosen, Asst. U.S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Before ROSS, STEPHENSON and WEBSTER, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Lee Sappington was convicted of possession of funds stolen from a federally insured savings and loan institution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(c) on October 9, 1968. He appealed that conviction, but pursuant to his motion the appeal was dismissed on June 5, 1969. Long after the time for appeal had run Sappington moved to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, for the reason that he was not sentenced in accordance with the Federal Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5005 et seq., and the mandate of Dorszynski v. United States, 418 U.S. 424, 94 S.Ct. 3042, 41 L.Ed.2d 855 (1974). Relief was denied by the district court on February 12, 1975. We reversed this determination and remanded for resentencing, because of inadequate compliance with Dorszynski, in Sappington v. United States, 518 F.2d 28 (8th Cir. 1975). The district court resentenced Sappington on August 15, 1975, in accordance with our mandate, finding defendant would not have benefited from sentencing under the Youth Corrections Act.
Petitioner now appeals the order of August 15, 1975, but does not allege error in the resentencing procedure. Instead, he alleges two errors in his trial, more than seven years ago, as grounds for appeal. 1
Matters not presented to the district court in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings may not be considered on appeal. Brown v. United States,454 F.2d 45, 46 (8th Cir. 1972). Furthermore, section 2255 is not a substitute for direct appeal, and matters which could have been raised on appeal will not be considered. Mixen v. United States, 469 F.2d 203, 205 n. 2 (8th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 906, 93 S.Ct. 2297, 36 L.Ed.2d 971 (1973); Cardarella v. United States, 375 f.2d 222, 231 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 882, 88 S.Ct. 129, 19 L.Ed.2d 176 (1967); Etherton v. United States, 249 F.2d 410, 412, 17 Alaska 274 (9th Cir. 1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 919, 78 S.Ct. 349, 2 L.Ed.2d 278 (1958). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
1 The identical issues which Sappington seeks to raise here were decided adversely to his co-defendant in the direct appeal of her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Grasso
...with the axiom that collateral attack on a federal sentence is not to be used as a substitute for direct appeal. United States v. Sappington, 527 F.2d 508 (8th Cir. 1975); United States v. Duhart, 511 F.2d 7 (6th Cir.), cert. denied 421 U.S. 1006, 95 S.Ct. 2409, 44 L.Ed.2d 675 (1975); Garci......
-
Brown v. U.S.
...v. Enresco, Inc., 446 F.2d 1193 (10th Cir. 1971). Collateral attack is not available as a substitute for an appeal, United States v. Sappington, 527 F.2d 508 (8th Cir. 1975), or as a means of showing trial error. See Crismon v. United States, 510 F.2d 356 (8th Cir. 1975). Also, petitioner h......
-
US v. Melucci, Cr. No. 88-038 L.
...U.S. 1001, 102 S.Ct. 2287, 73 L.Ed.2d 1296 (1982); Norris v. United States, 687 F.2d 899, 902-04 (7th Cir.1982); United States v. Sappington, 527 F.2d 508, 508-09 (8th Cir.1975), this Court will address the merits of Melucci's argument. 2 Although the fifth amendment does not contain an ind......
-
Green v. United States
...had jurisdiction to issue the original injunction, petitioner may not relitigate that issue in a § 2255 proceeding. United States v. Sappington, 527 F.2d 508 (8th Cir. 1975); Whitney v. United States, 513 F.2d 326 (8th Cir. 1974); Jackson v. United States, 495 F.2d 349 (8th Cir. 1974); Pete......