Arthur Mitchell v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Arthur Mitchell v. United States

390 F.2d 876, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7823

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 6, 1968

Docket24962_1

StatusPublished

This text of 390 F.2d 876 (Arthur Mitchell 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

Arthur Mitchell v. United States, 390 F.2d 876, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7823 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion to vacate 1 a federal criminal conviction and judgment for interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312.

Appellant’s sole contention is that his plea of guilty to this offense was induced by promises of two federal agents and of trial counsel. The district court held an evidentiary hearing at which the agents and counsel as well as appellant, testified, made exhaustive findings of fact and conclusions of law and denied relief. The Court has reviewed both this record and transcript of the original proceedings at which appellant pleaded guilty and holds that the district court had ample basis for its conclusions and the denial of relief. Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Davis v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 386 F.2d 837; Snipe v. United States, 9 Cir. 1965, 343 F.2d 25, certiorari denied 382 U.S. 960, 86 S.Ct. 440, 15 L.Ed.2d 363; Benton v. United States, 9 Cir. 1965, 352 F.2d 59.

Affirmed.

1

. 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion to vacate 1 a federal criminal conviction and judgment for interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312.

Appellant’s sole contention is that his plea of guilty to this offense was induced by promises of two federal agents and of trial counsel. The district court held an evidentiary hearing at which the agents and counsel as well as appellant, testified, made exhaustive findings of fact and conclusions of law and denied relief. The Court has reviewed both this record and transcript of the original proceedings at which appellant pleaded guilty and holds that the district court had ample basis for its conclusions and the denial of relief. Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Davis v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 386 F.2d 837; Snipe v. United States, 9 Cir. 1965, 343 F.2d 25, certiorari denied 382 U.S. 960, 86 S.Ct. 440, 15 L.Ed.2d 363; Benton v. United States, 9 Cir. 1965, 352 F.2d 59.

Affirmed.

1

. 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

390 F.2d 876, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-mitchell-v-united-states-ca5-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack