Legal Opinion

Smith v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided January 21, 1970No. 27770PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

All the contentions made by appellant in this appeal from the denial of his motion brought under Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 1 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.. Although appellant styled his petition “habeas corpus” w.e will treat it as a § 2255 motion.. Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Patricia Lebouef Murphy, as Administratrix of the Estate of Edward Fontenot, Deceased, Etc. v. Houma Well Service, and Eva C. Fontenot, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
  2. James Leo Huth v. Southern Pacific CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
  3. Joe Smith v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1968

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Raymond L. Buckelew and James Laney Jenkins v. United States of America, Judson Lee Drane v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
  2. Albert Fuentes, Jr., and Edward J. Montez v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1972

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API