Carl McFadden v. United States

489 F.2d 283, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 6417
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedDecember 18, 1973
Docket73-1656
StatusPublished

This text of 489 F.2d 283 (Carl McFadden v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Carl McFadden v. United States, 489 F.2d 283, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 6417 (8th Cir. 1973).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner appeals from a denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, praying that the court set aside and vacate his conviction and order a new trial.

The prior history of this case will be found in McFadden v. United States, 372 F.2d 598 (8th Cir. 1967), cert. denied 387 U.S. 931, 87 S.Ct. 2055, 18 L.Ed.2d 993 (1967); McFadden v. United States, 317 F.Supp. 926 (E.D.Mo.1970); McFadden v. United States, 436 F.2d 1384 (8th Cir. 1971); United States v. Stewart, 445 F.2d 897 (8th Cir. 1971); McFadden v. United States, 343 F.Supp. 402 (E.D.Mo.1972), and McFadden v. United States, 463 F.2d 730 (8th Cir. 1972), rehearing denied July 26, 1972.

We are now considering the fourth § 2255 motion. It asserts, in substance, that there was suppression by the government of evidence relating to the interest of a government witness in testifying for the government, asserting that the government had made a plea-bargaining “deal” with the witness. With a slight change in verbiage this is the same charge as made in the third § 2255 *284 motion, which was denied after plenary-hearing with respect thereto, the denial thereof being affirmed by this court. The fourth, now before us, is likewise denied, and for the same reasons.

As we held in a somewhat similar situation in Patrick v. United States, 466 F.2d 502 (8th Cir. 1972), an appeal from a dismissal of a fourth § 2255 motion,

A review of the record convinces us that Patrick’s allegations have already been fully considered in the federal courts and that this case is appropriate for summary affirmance.

Accordingly, the order, D.C., 362 F.Supp. 1106, dismissing petitioner’s motion to vacate and set aside sentence is

Affirmed.

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

Related

Carl McFadden v. United States
436 F.2d 1384 (Eighth Circuit, 1971)
United Statesof America v. Charles R. Stewart
445 F.2d 897 (Eighth Circuit, 1971)
Carl McFadden v. United States
463 F.2d 730 (Eighth Circuit, 1972)
Charles B. Patrick v. United States
466 F.2d 502 (Eighth Circuit, 1972)
McFadden v. United States
343 F. Supp. 402 (E.D. Missouri, 1972)
McFadden v. United States
317 F. Supp. 926 (E.D. Missouri, 1970)
McFadden v. United States
362 F. Supp. 1106 (E.D. Missouri, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
489 F.2d 283, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 6417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carl-mcfadden-v-united-states-ca8-1973.