Allan James Berube v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Allan James Berube v. United States

355 F.2d 543, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7360

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 28, 1966

Docket22348

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 355 F.2d 543 (Allan James Berube v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allan James Berube v. United States, 355 F.2d 543, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7360 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The district court had before it appellant’s petition under 28 U.S.C. 2255 which sought to set aside his judgment of commitment on the grounds that he had not been apprised of his right of appeal, and/or his failure to take a timely appeal was due to fear engendered by acts of government personnel.

We agree with the district court’s conclusion that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is not one of the grounds upon which a judgment of commitment may be set aside under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Williams v. United States of America, 307 F.2d 366 (9th Cir., 1962). Despite this, however, the district court granted a full hearing and found from the evidence thus adduced that this appellant was, in fact, advised of his right of appeal on the day of his sentencing, and, further, that his failure to appeal was not due to any actions by government agents or prosecutors.

The record before us fully supports these findings by the district court and its denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255 is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The district court had before it appellant’s petition under 28 U.S.C. 2255 which sought to set aside his judgment of commitment on the grounds that he had not been apprised of his right of appeal, and/or his failure to take a timely appeal was due to fear engendered by acts of government personnel.

We agree with the district court’s conclusion that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is not one of the grounds upon which a judgment of commitment may be set aside under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Williams v. United States of America, 307 F.2d 366 (9th Cir., 1962). Despite this, however, the district court granted a full hearing and found from the evidence thus adduced that this appellant was, in fact, advised of his right of appeal on the day of his sentencing, and, further, that his failure to appeal was not due to any actions by government agents or prosecutors.

The record before us fully supports these findings by the district court and its denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255 is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

355 F.2d 543, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allan-james-berube-v-united-states-ca5-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack