Jack Lee Loving v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Jack Lee Loving v. United States

458 F.2d 1347, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10184

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 10, 1972

Docket71-3441

StatusPublished

This text of 458 F.2d 1347 (Jack Lee Loving 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

Jack Lee Loving v. United States, 458 F.2d 1347, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10184 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the district court’s denial of Loving’s motion to vacate judgment and sentence. 1 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In his motion Loving contended that his fifteen-year federal sentence was invalid because the sentencing judge relied upon erroneous information contained in a presentence report in determining the sentence. After an answer was filed by the respondent, the district court entered an order setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law contrary to Loving’s contentions. These findings and conclusions are fully supported by the record. Accordingly, the order dismissing the motion is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s local Rule 9(c) (2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 412 F.2d 981 (5th Cir. 1969).

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

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the district court’s denial of Loving’s motion to vacate judgment and sentence. 1 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In his motion Loving contended that his fifteen-year federal sentence was invalid because the sentencing judge relied upon erroneous information contained in a presentence report in determining the sentence. After an answer was filed by the respondent, the district court entered an order setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law contrary to Loving’s contentions. These findings and conclusions are fully supported by the record. Accordingly, the order dismissing the motion is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s local Rule 9(c) (2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 412 F.2d 981 (5th Cir. 1969).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

458 F.2d 1347, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jack-lee-loving-v-united-states-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack