Clarence Ernest Campbell, III v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Clarence Ernest Campbell, III v. United States

420 F.2d 963, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 11024

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 27, 1970

Docket28467

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 420 F.2d 963 (Clarence Ernest Campbell, III 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

Clarence Ernest Campbell, III v. United States, 420 F.2d 963, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 11024 (5th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is taken from an order of the district court denying the motion of a federal convict to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm. 1

Appellant was convicted on his plea of oruilty to an indictment charging him with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(c), possession of money stolen from a bank, the amount stolen being in excess of one hundred dollars. He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment on April 12, 1968.

In his motion to vacate sentence, appellant complains that his plea of guilty was coerced and that his sentence was in excess of the maximum set by the statute. The district court denied relief, stating that appellant failed to allege any facts to support his claim that his plea was coerced, and that the sentence was not in excess of the statute under which he was indicted and convicted.

Having reviewed the record, which includes a transcript of appellant’s arraignment and sentencing, we perceive no clear error in the findings of the court below. Appellant’s § 2255 motion contains no allegations of fact whatsoever to support his claim that his plea was coerced. Further, his claim that his sentence is excessive is flatly contradicted by the record, which shows conclusively that appellant was indicted for and pled *964 guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (c), which carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years if the amount stolen exceeds $100. Thus, we perceive no clear error in the findings of fact made by the district court, or its application of the law. The judgment below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5th Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804, Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5th Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 526, Part. I.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is taken from an order of the district court denying the motion of a federal convict to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm. 1

Appellant was convicted on his plea of oruilty to an indictment charging him with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(c), possession of money stolen from a bank, the amount stolen being in excess of one hundred dollars. He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment on April 12, 1968.

In his motion to vacate sentence, appellant complains that his plea of guilty was coerced and that his sentence was in excess of the maximum set by the statute. The district court denied relief, stating that appellant failed to allege any facts to support his claim that his plea was coerced, and that the sentence was not in excess of the statute under which he was indicted and convicted.

Having reviewed the record, which includes a transcript of appellant’s arraignment and sentencing, we perceive no clear error in the findings of the court below. Appellant’s § 2255 motion contains no allegations of fact whatsoever to support his claim that his plea was coerced. Further, his claim that his sentence is excessive is flatly contradicted by the record, which shows conclusively that appellant was indicted for and pled *964 guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (c), which carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years if the amount stolen exceeds $100. Thus, we perceive no clear error in the findings of fact made by the district court, or its application of the law. The judgment below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5th Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804, Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5th Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 526, Part. I.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

420 F.2d 963, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 11024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clarence-ernest-campbell-iii-v-united-states-ca5-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack