Duquesne v. Steele

Eighth Circuit

Duquesne v. Steele

197 F.2d 56, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2577

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 6, 1952

Docket14518

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 197 F.2d 56 (Duquesne v. Steele) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Duquesne v. Steele, 197 F.2d 56, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2577 (8th Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The appellant is confined in the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri, under a sentence of imprisonment imposed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on January 2, 1942. The appellant’s petition for a writ failed to show that he had applied to the court which sentenced him for the vacation of his sentence, under § 2255, Title 28, U.S.C.A. It was upon that ground that his petition was denied by the District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The petition was properly denied, since by the provisions of § 2255 the District Court was without authority to entertain the petition. See Higgins v. Steele, 8 Cir., 195 F.2d 366.

The order appealed from is 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 a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The appellant is confined in the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri, under a sentence of imprisonment imposed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on January 2, 1942. The appellant’s petition for a writ failed to show that he had applied to the court which sentenced him for the vacation of his sentence, under § 2255, Title 28, U.S.C.A. It was upon that ground that his petition was denied by the District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The petition was properly denied, since by the provisions of § 2255 the District Court was without authority to entertain the petition. See Higgins v. Steele, 8 Cir., 195 F.2d 366.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 F.2d 56, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duquesne-v-steele-ca8-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack