Frank Sepulveda Casados v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Frank Sepulveda Casados v. United States

354 F.2d 688

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 25, 1966

Docket22391_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 354 F.2d 688 (Frank Sepulveda Casados 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

Frank Sepulveda Casados v. United States, 354 F.2d 688 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appellant was convicted of violating the marihuana laws of the United States. The validity of his sentence was previously considered by the Court in Casados v. United States, 5 Cir., 300 F.2d 845, cert. den. 373 U.S. 938, 83 S.Ct. 1543, 10 L.Ed.2d 693. The present challenge to the validity of the conviction and sentence is presented by an application which in form was for mandamus and which the district court properly treated as a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. Two questions, presented to the district court, are raised here. The first point raised is that at the trial counsel conferred with the court at the bench without the presence of the court reporter taking down and transcribing the proceedings at the bench in violation of 28 U.S.C.A. § 753 (b). Whether or not side-bar colloquy needs to be reported is a question which we do not decide. It is not a question that can be raised in a Section 2255 proceeding. The other contention is that perjured testimony was knowingly used. The district court had a hearing and the persons relied upon by the appellant to sustain his position were examined. The court decided that the proof of the charge had not been made. The determination was correct.

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:

The appellant was convicted of violating the marihuana laws of the United States. The validity of his sentence was previously considered by the Court in Casados v. United States, 5 Cir., 300 F.2d 845, cert. den. 373 U.S. 938, 83 S.Ct. 1543, 10 L.Ed.2d 693. The present challenge to the validity of the conviction and sentence is presented by an application which in form was for mandamus and which the district court properly treated as a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. Two questions, presented to the district court, are raised here. The first point raised is that at the trial counsel conferred with the court at the bench without the presence of the court reporter taking down and transcribing the proceedings at the bench in violation of 28 U.S.C.A. § 753 (b). Whether or not side-bar colloquy needs to be reported is a question which we do not decide. It is not a question that can be raised in a Section 2255 proceeding. The other contention is that perjured testimony was knowingly used. The district court had a hearing and the persons relied upon by the appellant to sustain his position were examined. The court decided that the proof of the charge had not been made. The determination was correct.

The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

354 F.2d 688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-sepulveda-casados-v-united-states-ca5-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack