Chester Banks v. United States

258 F.2d 318
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedNovember 10, 1958
Docket14-10080
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 258 F.2d 318 (Chester Banks v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chester Banks v. United States, 258 F.2d 318 (9th Cir. 1958).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon remand, the lower court entered an order again denying appellant’s motion (under Section 2255 of Title 28 U.S.C.A.) to vacate the judgment and sentence (in his 1954 conviction) after reconsideration as directed in the opinion of this Court in Banks v. United States of America, 249 F.2d 672. Appellant’s *319 appeal from this order presents four contentions. (1) He was denied due process of law because the court’s instruction on entrapment was insufficient in law and fact, (2) he was denied a fair trial because the judge failed to instruct the jury that if it found that Banks had acted as a “purchasing agent,” he could not be convicted under the indictment as a “seller,” (3) the court erred when it failed to pass on the merits of appellant’s allegation that he had been entrapped, and (4) the court erred when it denied appellant’s motion for the reporter’s transcript in forma pauperis.

Appellant’s counsel agrees that no appeal was taken from the 1954 judgment and sentence here involved, and that appellant took no exceptions to the above mentioned instructions given the jury. None of the first three contentions above noted involves a violation of the constitutional rights of appellant. They present issues that could have been and should have been raised by a timely appeal from the sentence if appellant desired to raise them. Section 2255, supra, does not give him the right to try over again a case in which he was adjudged guilty. See Hastings v. United States of America, 9 Cir., 184 F.2d 939. Under the circumstances of this case, the lower court properly denied appellant’s motion for a reporter’s transcript.

The order here appealed from is affirmed.

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

Related

Johnston v. National Broadcasting Company, Inc.
356 F. Supp. 904 (E.D. New York, 1973)
United States v. Francisco Martinez Liantaud
466 F.2d 1342 (Ninth Circuit, 1972)
LeDent v. Wolff
334 F. Supp. 64 (D. Nebraska, 1971)
Robert Theodore Weaver v. United States
418 F.2d 475 (Eighth Circuit, 1969)
Mathew L. Evans v. United States
408 F.2d 369 (Seventh Circuit, 1969)
Franano v. United States
243 F. Supp. 709 (W.D. Missouri, 1965)
Audilio Carrillo v. United States
332 F.2d 202 (Tenth Circuit, 1964)
United States v. Willie Bailey
331 F.2d 218 (Seventh Circuit, 1964)
Rush v. United States
225 F. Supp. 843 (E.D. Louisiana, 1964)
James C. Simmons v. United States
302 F.2d 71 (Third Circuit, 1962)
Anthony Joseph Cambiano v. United States
295 F.2d 13 (Ninth Circuit, 1961)
William Banks v. United States
287 F.2d 374 (Seventh Circuit, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
258 F.2d 318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chester-banks-v-united-states-ca9-1958.