United States v. Stevens, 12471.
| Decision Date | 31 October 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 12471.,12471. |
| Citation | 260 F.2d 549 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Jerome A. STEVENS, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Clyde A. Szuch, Asst. U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J. (Chester A. Weidenburner, U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J., on the brief), for appellee.
Before MARIS, McLAUGHLIN and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
The defendant has appealed from the denial by the district court of his application by letter for a writ of error coram nobis which the court treated as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate or correct the sentence imposed on him on May 14, 1954, of twenty-five years imprisonment upon two counts of an indictment charging bank robberies under aggravated circumstances. In support of his request the defendant objected to a certain alleged instruction by the trial judge to the jury at his trial and to the failure of the indictment to charge that the lives of specified individuals were placed in jeopardy and that this was done by the defendant personally. The district court found no merit in the defendant's application and denied it. We have carefully considered the argument advanced by the defendant and his counsel but find ourselves in agreement with the district court that the grounds stated were properly presentable only on appeal from the judgment of conviction and are not of such fundamental jurisdictional character as to be available to support a writ of habeas corpus or a motion under section 2255.
The order of the district court will be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmons v. United States, 13620.
...a great deal of effort." 9 Some of the cases to this effect are: United States v. Duhart, 269 F.2d 113 (2 Cir. 1959); United States v. Stevens, 260 F.2d 549 (3 Cir. 1958); United States v. Rutkin, 212 F.2d 641 (3 Cir. 1954); United States v. Anselmi, 207 F. 2d 312 (3 Cir. 1953); United Stat......
-
Franano v. United States
...errors in instructions should properly be raised on appeal, Banks v. United States (7th Cir. 1961) 287 F.2d 374; United States v. Stevens, (3rd Cir. 1958) 260 F.2d 549; Banks v. United States, (9th Cir. 1958), 258 F.2d 318, cert. den. 358 U.S. 886, 79 S.Ct. 128, 3 L.Ed.2d 114; not by a moti......
-
United States v. Osborn
...Banks v. United States, 287 F.2d 374 (7th Cir. 1961); cert. denied, 366 U.S. 939, 81 S.Ct. 1668, 6 L.Ed.2d 850; United States v. Stevens, 260 F.2d 549 (3rd Cir. 1958). The Sufficiency of the Osborn in his direct appeal in this Court, and also in the Supreme Court, raised the question that w......
-
Application of Thwing
...Marelia v. Burke, 1952, 3 Cir., 197 F.2d 856, cert. den., Marelia v. Burke, 344 U.S. 868, 73 S.Ct. 110, 97 L.Ed. 673; United States v. Stevens, 1958, 3 Cir., 260 F.2d 549; Poulson v. Turner, 1966, 10 Cir., 359 F.2d 588, cert. den., 385 U.S. 905, 87 S.Ct. 219, 17 L.Ed.2d 136; and DiPaolo v. ......