James Earl Brown v. United States

Fifth Circuit

James Earl Brown v. United States

454 F.2d 1169

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 8, 1971

Docket71-1902

StatusPublished

This text of 454 F.2d 1169 (James Earl Brown 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

James Earl Brown v. United States, 454 F.2d 1169 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

It is appropriate to dispose of this per 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, 5th Cir. 1969, 412 F.2d 981.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed. 1 See Local Rule 21. 2

1

. In his motion to vacate, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the appellant has challenged the validity of his conviction on grounds that: (1) his guilty plea was coerced in that the Government threatened to use an illegally-obtained statement against him; (2) his plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered because he was not aware of the possible defenses to the charge; (3) he was mentally incompetent to enter the plea because he was withdrawing from alcohol at the time; (4) the trial court failed to determine that there was a factual basis for the guilty plea; (5) the indictment was fatally defective because it did not include all of the essential elements of the crime; and (6) his privately-retained attorney rendered ineffective service.

2

. See N.L.R.B. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 5 Cir., 1970, 430 F.2d 966.

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

PER CURIAM:

It is appropriate to dispose of this per 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, 5th Cir. 1969, 412 F.2d 981.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed. 1 See Local Rule 21. 2

1

. In his motion to vacate, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the appellant has challenged the validity of his conviction on grounds that: (1) his guilty plea was coerced in that the Government threatened to use an illegally-obtained statement against him; (2) his plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered because he was not aware of the possible defenses to the charge; (3) he was mentally incompetent to enter the plea because he was withdrawing from alcohol at the time; (4) the trial court failed to determine that there was a factual basis for the guilty plea; (5) the indictment was fatally defective because it did not include all of the essential elements of the crime; and (6) his privately-retained attorney rendered ineffective service.

2

. See N.L.R.B. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 5 Cir., 1970, 430 F.2d 966.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

454 F.2d 1169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-earl-brown-v-united-states-ca5-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack