Adam v. Vaught

Tenth Circuit

Adam v. Vaught

136 F.2d 539, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3091

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedJune 9, 1943

DocketNo. 2764

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 136 F.2d 539 (Adam v. Vaught) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adam v. Vaught, 136 F.2d 539, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3091 (10th Cir. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

R. E. Adam seeks leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus directing Honorable Edgar S. Vaught, Judge of the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Oklahoma, to allow him to prosecute an appeal in forma pauperis from an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment and sentence.

The term at which the judgment was entered had expired long before the motion to vacate was filed. The notice of appeal was not filed within the time required by Rule III of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, after plea of guilty, verdict or finding of guilt, in criminal cases, 18 U.S. C.A. following section 688. The motion does not set up any facts which would have warranted relief under a writ of error coram nobis, or coram nobis at common law. See United States v. Mayer 235 U.S. 55, 35 S.Ct. 16, 59 L.Ed. 129.

Leave to file is, therefore, denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

R. E. Adam seeks leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus directing Honorable Edgar S. Vaught, Judge of the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Oklahoma, to allow him to prosecute an appeal in forma pauperis from an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment and sentence.

The term at which the judgment was entered had expired long before the motion to vacate was filed. The notice of appeal was not filed within the time required by Rule III of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, after plea of guilty, verdict or finding of guilt, in criminal cases, 18 U.S. C.A. following section 688. The motion does not set up any facts which would have warranted relief under a writ of error coram nobis, or coram nobis at common law. See United States v. Mayer 235 U.S. 55, 35 S.Ct. 16, 59 L.Ed. 129.

Leave to file is, therefore, denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 F.2d 539, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3091, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adam-v-vaught-ca10-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack