Billy R. Barker v. United States of America, No. 28249 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5 Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of New York, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409

Fifth Circuit

Billy R. Barker v. United States of America, No. 28249 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5 Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of New York, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409

437 F.2d 107

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 26, 1971

Docket107

StatusPublished

This text of 437 F.2d 107 (Billy R. Barker v. United States of America, No. 28249 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5 Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of New York, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409) 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

Billy R. Barker v. United States of America, No. 28249 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5 Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of New York, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, 437 F.2d 107 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

437 F.2d 107

Billy R. BARKER, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 28249 Summary Calendar.*
*Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc
v.
Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 26, 1971.

Bernard J. Capella, New Orleans, La. (court-appointed), Bernard J. Bagert, Jr., New Orleans, La., for petitioner-appellant.

Gerald J. Gallinghouse, U.S. Atty., Robert L. Livingston, Jr., Daniel J. Markey, Jr., Asst. U.S. Attys., for respondent-appellee.

Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of Barker's 2255 petition, in which he alleged that his guilty plea to violation of 18 U.S.C.A. 2312 was coerced. He contends that the court did not carry out a deal made between defense counsel, the Assistant United States Attorney, and the District Judge to impose a two year federal sentence to run concurrently with a two year state sentence but instead sentenced Barker to four years. We affirm.

At the time Barker entered his plea of guilty, he was closely questioned by the court to ensure that the plea was voluntarily made. His claim of coercion 'is squarely rebutted by appellant's repeated statements to the contrary made at the time the plea was entered and therefore need not be considered further. Putnam v. United States, 10th Cir. 1964, 337 F.2d 313, 315.' United States v. Cooper, 5 Cir. 1969, 410 F.2d 1128, 1130.

Moreover, the testimony of the sentencing judge, the Assistant United States Attorney, and counsel for Barker leaves no room for doubt that no deal was made, or was represented to Barker by his counsel as having been made.

Affirmed.

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

437 F.2d 107

Billy R. BARKER, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 28249 Summary Calendar.*
*Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc
v.
Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 26, 1971.

Bernard J. Capella, New Orleans, La. (court-appointed), Bernard J. Bagert, Jr., New Orleans, La., for petitioner-appellant.

Gerald J. Gallinghouse, U.S. Atty., Robert L. Livingston, Jr., Daniel J. Markey, Jr., Asst. U.S. Attys., for respondent-appellee.

Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of Barker's 2255 petition, in which he alleged that his guilty plea to violation of 18 U.S.C.A. 2312 was coerced. He contends that the court did not carry out a deal made between defense counsel, the Assistant United States Attorney, and the District Judge to impose a two year federal sentence to run concurrently with a two year state sentence but instead sentenced Barker to four years. We affirm.

At the time Barker entered his plea of guilty, he was closely questioned by the court to ensure that the plea was voluntarily made. His claim of coercion 'is squarely rebutted by appellant's repeated statements to the contrary made at the time the plea was entered and therefore need not be considered further. Putnam v. United States, 10th Cir. 1964, 337 F.2d 313, 315.' United States v. Cooper, 5 Cir. 1969, 410 F.2d 1128, 1130.

Moreover, the testimony of the sentencing judge, the Assistant United States Attorney, and counsel for Barker leaves no room for doubt that no deal was made, or was represented to Barker by his counsel as having been made.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

437 F.2d 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/billy-r-barker-v-united-states-of-america-no-28249-summary-calendar-ca5-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack