Weber v. Steele, 14197
| Decision Date | 19 December 1950 |
| Docket Number | 14219.,No. 14197,14197 |
| Citation | 185 F.2d 799 |
| Parties | WEBER v. STEELE, Warden, U. S. Medical Center (two cases). |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
John Weber, appellant, pro se.
Sam M. Wear, U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo. and William Aull, III, Asst. U. S. Atty., Lexington, Mo., for appellee.
Before SANBORN, JOHNSEN, and RIDDICK, Circuit Judges.
The appellant is confined in the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri, under a sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On June 28, 1950, he filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri a document entitled, "Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion to vacate convictions, judgments, commitments and sentences or other relief as the Court may see fit." The District Court treated it as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and, after pointing out that under Section 2255 of Title 28 U.S.C.A., the Court was precluded from entertaining the petition, entered an order denying it. This appeal is from that order.
Section 2255 of Title 28 U.S.C.A., provides that "A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence." The section also provides that "An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section, shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." A motion to vacate or correct a sentence can be made in the sentencing court at any time. A denial of such a motion by that court is subject to review by the Court of Appeals of the Circuit in which the sentencing court is located, and on certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States.
The purpose of Section 2255 was to require a federal prisoner to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Hayman
...invalid: Smith v. Reid, D.C.Cir., 1951, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 272, 191 F.2d 491; Meyers v. Welch, 4 Cir., 1950, 179 F.2d 707; Weber v. Steele, 8 Cir., 1950, 185 F.2d 799. And in the following cases, other circuits remanded Section 2255 proceedings for hearing without suggesting that the Section w......
-
Hayman v. United States
...of certiorari is required because of the opposing decisions cited in Chief Judge Denman's opinion. The Eighth Circuit, in Weber v. Steele, Warden, 185 F.2d 799, 800, creates a further ground for certiorari. It carries to a logical absurdity the proposition that litigation under Section 2255......
-
Smith v. Martinez, CV 17-18-TUC-JAS (BPV)
...before filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Crismond v. Blackwell, 333 F.2d 374, 377 (3rd Cir. 1964); Weber v. Steele, 185 F.2d 799, 800 (8th Cir. 1950). These decisions were in existence long before Alaimalo was decided, yet the Ninth Circuit granted relief under the escape hat......
-
Campbell v. Clark
...Simmons v. United States, 253 F.2d 909 (8th Cir. 1958); Martin v. United States, 248 F.2d 554 (8th Cir. 1957); Weber v. Steele, 185 F.2d 799 (8th Cir. 1950) (per curiam). Thus, to the extent that petitioner seeks to litigate questions and to present evidence that heretofore have not been pr......