Gerhard A. Puff, Appellant-Petitioner v. United States, United States v. Gerhard A. Puff, Appellant-Defendant

Second Circuit

Gerhard A. Puff, Appellant-Petitioner v. United States, United States v. Gerhard A. Puff, Appellant-Defendant

214 F.2d 821

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJuly 12, 1954

Docket821_1

StatusPublished

This text of 214 F.2d 821 (Gerhard A. Puff, Appellant-Petitioner v. United States, United States v. Gerhard A. Puff, Appellant-Defendant) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gerhard A. Puff, Appellant-Petitioner v. United States, United States v. Gerhard A. Puff, Appellant-Defendant, 214 F.2d 821 (2d Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Opinion on Motion for Stay

This motion was presented before the undersigned and fully heard on July 6, 1954.

Upon its submission we speedily satisfied ourselves that there was no substance to the claim either of newly discovered evidence or of lack of due process upon which the motion was predicated. However, in a matter of such gravity we thought it wise to consider whether the motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, which was denied below 122 F.Supp. 775, if treated as a timely motion for rehearing addressed to our opinion in the former appeal, 211 F.2d 171, could possibly have sufficed to change the ultimate holding. And now, having again carefully reviewed the trial record and the briefs on the former appeal, and having considered as well the impact thereon of all argument made on the pending motion, we are satisfied that, even were the motion under section 2255 treated as a broad petition for rehearing, there would be no valid cause for disturbing the judgment of conviction execution of which the defendant seeks a stay.

JEROME N. FRANK

C. J.

CARROLL C. HINCKS

C. J

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

PER CURIAM.

Opinion on Motion for Stay

This motion was presented before the undersigned and fully heard on July 6, 1954.

Upon its submission we speedily satisfied ourselves that there was no substance to the claim either of newly discovered evidence or of lack of due process upon which the motion was predicated. However, in a matter of such gravity we thought it wise to consider whether the motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, which was denied below 122 F.Supp. 775, if treated as a timely motion for rehearing addressed to our opinion in the former appeal, 211 F.2d 171, could possibly have sufficed to change the ultimate holding. And now, having again carefully reviewed the trial record and the briefs on the former appeal, and having considered as well the impact thereon of all argument made on the pending motion, we are satisfied that, even were the motion under section 2255 treated as a broad petition for rehearing, there would be no valid cause for disturbing the judgment of conviction execution of which the defendant seeks a stay.

JEROME N. FRANK

C. J.

CARROLL C. HINCKS

C. J

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 F.2d 821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gerhard-a-puff-appellant-petitioner-v-united-states-united-states-v-ca2-1954.

Opinion

C. J.

C. J

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack