Daniel Rubenstein v. United States

Third Circuit

Daniel Rubenstein v. United States

385 F.2d 490, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4541

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedNovember 13, 1967

Docket16729

StatusPublished

This text of 385 F.2d 490 (Daniel Rubenstein v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Daniel Rubenstein v. United States, 385 F.2d 490, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4541 (3d Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

In the instant case the defendant appeals from an Order of the District Court for the District of New Jersey denying his motion to vacate sentence pursuant to Section 2255, 28 U.S.C.A., and from a further Order of the District Court denying the defendant’s motion for reconsideration. 1

The defendant urges that the District Court did not comply with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in accepting his plea of guilty in that it did not determine whether the defendant understood the nature and consequence of the charges against him; and whether he was mentally competent when he pleaded guilty. He also charges that the indictment was fatally defective and that the District Court erred in holding to the contrary. Finally, he contends that the District Court erred in disposing of his petition to vacate his sentence without a hearing.

*491 On review of the record we are of the opinion that the defendant’s contentions are utterly without merit and that the District Court did not err in entering the Orders involved in this appeal.

For the reasons stated the Orders of the District Court will be affirmed.

1

. In his motion for reconsideration the defendant also asked leave to amend his motion to vacate sentence.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

In the instant case the defendant appeals from an Order of the District Court for the District of New Jersey denying his motion to vacate sentence pursuant to Section 2255, 28 U.S.C.A., and from a further Order of the District Court denying the defendant’s motion for reconsideration. 1

The defendant urges that the District Court did not comply with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in accepting his plea of guilty in that it did not determine whether the defendant understood the nature and consequence of the charges against him; and whether he was mentally competent when he pleaded guilty. He also charges that the indictment was fatally defective and that the District Court erred in holding to the contrary. Finally, he contends that the District Court erred in disposing of his petition to vacate his sentence without a hearing.

*491 On review of the record we are of the opinion that the defendant’s contentions are utterly without merit and that the District Court did not err in entering the Orders involved in this appeal.

For the reasons stated the Orders of the District Court will be affirmed.

1

. In his motion for reconsideration the defendant also asked leave to amend his motion to vacate sentence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

385 F.2d 490, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-rubenstein-v-united-states-ca3-1967.