Clarence Duke McGann v. United States

Fourth Circuit

Clarence Duke McGann v. United States

249 F.2d 431, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4005

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 13, 1957

Docket7517_1

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 249 F.2d 431 (Clarence Duke McGann v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clarence Duke McGann v. United States, 249 F.2d 431, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4005 (4th Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying what is denominated a petition for writ of habeas corpus but which was properly treated by the District Judge as a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Appellant had pleaded guilty to a charge of armed bank robbery in violation of the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 2113. He contends that the indictment does not charge a crime because the bank which he is charged with robbing is described as located on an Air Force base and must therefore be considered as a “banking facility” established in accordance with Air Force regulations and not as a bank. The crime to which appellant pleaded guilty is charged in the language of the statute; and there is nothing to show that it is not properly charged or that the bank ceased to be a bank because it was located on the Air Force base. Appellant was represented by competent counsel who did not raise the point in the trial court. There is no defect in the indictment, and in no event would it be held insufficient on a motion to vacate sentence unless so obviously defective that by no reasonable construction could it be said to charge the crime for which sentence was imposed. Aaron v. United States, 4 Cir., 188 F.2d 446; Dickerson v. United States, 4 Cir., 175 F.2d 440; Pifer v. United States, 4 Cir., 158 F.2d 867.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying what is denominated a petition for writ of habeas corpus but which was properly treated by the District Judge as a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Appellant had pleaded guilty to a charge of armed bank robbery in violation of the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 2113. He contends that the indictment does not charge a crime because the bank which he is charged with robbing is described as located on an Air Force base and must therefore be considered as a “banking facility” established in accordance with Air Force regulations and not as a bank. The crime to which appellant pleaded guilty is charged in the language of the statute; and there is nothing to show that it is not properly charged or that the bank ceased to be a bank because it was located on the Air Force base. Appellant was represented by competent counsel who did not raise the point in the trial court. There is no defect in the indictment, and in no event would it be held insufficient on a motion to vacate sentence unless so obviously defective that by no reasonable construction could it be said to charge the crime for which sentence was imposed. Aaron v. United States, 4 Cir., 188 F.2d 446; Dickerson v. United States, 4 Cir., 175 F.2d 440; Pifer v. United States, 4 Cir., 158 F.2d 867.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 F.2d 431, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clarence-duke-mcgann-v-united-states-ca4-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack