Henry Lyles v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Henry Lyles v. United States

341 F.2d 917, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6539

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 15, 1965

Docket21782

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 341 F.2d 917 (Henry Lyles 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

Henry Lyles v. United States, 341 F.2d 917, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6539 (5th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the denial without a hearing of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. One issue implicit in the appeal is whether the record discloses that the appellant’s right to appeal from the judgment of conviction may have been so frustrated as to justify relief under the principles presently stated by this court in No. 21,428, Pate v. Holman, Warden Kilby Prison, Alabama, 5 Cir., 341 F.2d 764. See also Johnson v. United States, 1957, 352 U.S. 565, 77 S.Ct. 550, 1 L.Ed.2d 593; Ellis v. United States, 1958, 356 U.S. 674, 78 S.Ct. 974, 2 L.Ed.2d 1060; Carnley v. Cockran, 1962, 369 U.S. 506, 516, 82 S.Ct. 884, 8 L.Ed.2d 70; Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977; United States ex rel. Durocher v. LaVallee, 2d Cir. 1964, 330 F.2d 303; Taylor v. United States, W.D.Mo. 1963, 215 F.Supp. 336; United States v. Cuthbert, W.D.Mo.1963, 215 F.Supp. 333, affirmed 8th Cir. 1964, 325 F.2d 920.

To the end that that issue, along with the other issues on this appeal, may be fairly and adequately presented, it is ordered that the submission be vacated and the case restored to the docket to be again set for hearing in due course. It is further ordered that counsel be appointed to represent the appellant on this appeal.

So ordered.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the denial without a hearing of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. One issue implicit in the appeal is whether the record discloses that the appellant’s right to appeal from the judgment of conviction may have been so frustrated as to justify relief under the principles presently stated by this court in No. 21,428, Pate v. Holman, Warden Kilby Prison, Alabama, 5 Cir., 341 F.2d 764. See also Johnson v. United States, 1957, 352 U.S. 565, 77 S.Ct. 550, 1 L.Ed.2d 593; Ellis v. United States, 1958, 356 U.S. 674, 78 S.Ct. 974, 2 L.Ed.2d 1060; Carnley v. Cockran, 1962, 369 U.S. 506, 516, 82 S.Ct. 884, 8 L.Ed.2d 70; Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977; United States ex rel. Durocher v. LaVallee, 2d Cir. 1964, 330 F.2d 303; Taylor v. United States, W.D.Mo. 1963, 215 F.Supp. 336; United States v. Cuthbert, W.D.Mo.1963, 215 F.Supp. 333, affirmed 8th Cir. 1964, 325 F.2d 920.

To the end that that issue, along with the other issues on this appeal, may be fairly and adequately presented, it is ordered that the submission be vacated and the case restored to the docket to be again set for hearing in due course. It is further ordered that counsel be appointed to represent the appellant on this appeal.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 F.2d 917, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-lyles-v-united-states-ca5-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack