Lee Jackson Keel v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
1Concurrence
ALVIN B. RUBIN, Circuit Judge, with whom CHARLES CLARK and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges,
join concurring:
I concur both in the result reached, and in the Court’s decision, when Rule 11 noncompliance has been shown, to distinguish collateral attacks under § 2255 from direct appeals. However, because a major purpose of the Rule, as amended in 1975, was prophylactic, e. g., United States v. Clark, 5 Cir. 1978, 574 F.2d 1357, 1358,1 the validity of a test dependent on the manner in which, or the time when, the transgression is asserted, is not self-evident. I would, therefore, not merely adopt the…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- McCarthy v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Davis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- United States v. Ruben Garza CoronadoCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1977
- Frank E. Bachner v. United States of America, (Two Cases). United States of America v. Frank E. BachnerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1975
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.