Donald Earl Spann v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Donald Earl Spann v. United States

438 F.2d 537, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11204

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMarch 23, 1971

Docket20644

StatusPublished

This text of 438 F.2d 537 (Donald Earl Spann v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Donald Earl Spann v. United States, 438 F.2d 537, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11204 (6th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner-appellant in this case was convicted after a jury trial before a District Judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on two counts of interstate transportation of stolen securities. Our court affirmed this conviction by order in Spann v. United States, No. 18,817, decided February 7, 1969. Subsequently, appellant filed a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1964). This motion was denied by the same District Judge without a hearing.

Inspection of the petition and the brief filed therewith convinces this court that the allegations in petitioner’s sworn aver-ments were either presented to this court and denied in the previous appeal, or are stated in such conclusory language as to lack the specificity of allegation which would demand an evidentiary hearing. See Scott v. United States, 349 F.2d 641 (6th Cir. 1965). Appellant, for example, alleges ineffectiveness of counsel but in nowise indicates how or wherein his chosen counsel was ineffective.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner-appellant in this case was convicted after a jury trial before a District Judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on two counts of interstate transportation of stolen securities. Our court affirmed this conviction by order in Spann v. United States, No. 18,817, decided February 7, 1969. Subsequently, appellant filed a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1964). This motion was denied by the same District Judge without a hearing.

Inspection of the petition and the brief filed therewith convinces this court that the allegations in petitioner’s sworn aver-ments were either presented to this court and denied in the previous appeal, or are stated in such conclusory language as to lack the specificity of allegation which would demand an evidentiary hearing. See Scott v. United States, 349 F.2d 641 (6th Cir. 1965). Appellant, for example, alleges ineffectiveness of counsel but in nowise indicates how or wherein his chosen counsel was ineffective.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

438 F.2d 537, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donald-earl-spann-v-united-states-ca6-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack