James Francis Hill v. United States

Sixth Circuit

James Francis Hill v. United States

238 F.2d 84, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3993

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedOctober 23, 1956

Docket12852

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 238 F.2d 84 (James Francis Hill v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James Francis Hill v. United States, 238 F.2d 84, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3993 (6th Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted and sentenced in the Eastern District of Tennessee for knowingly transporting in interstate commerce a stolen motor vehicle in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312 and for transporting in interstate commerce a person who had been kidnapped and held for ransom in violation of 18 U.S. C.A. § 1201. No appeal was taken from this conviction. He now comes before this court on appeal from an order denying his motion to vacate sentence filed in the district court pursuant to 28 U.S. C.A. § 2255. His appeal from the denial of a prior motion filed under that section was before us in Hill v. United States, 6 Cir., 1955, 223 F.2d 699, certiorari denied 1955, 350 U.S. 867, 76 S.Ct. 113, where it was held that the district court’s finding that the appellant had the mental capacity to stand trial wTas not, in the light of the record of the district court’s hearing on that issue, open to collateral attack upon a motion to set aside the sentence. Nothing not already considered and disposed of by this court is presented by this appeal.

The order of the district court is accordingly affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted and sentenced in the Eastern District of Tennessee for knowingly transporting in interstate commerce a stolen motor vehicle in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312 and for transporting in interstate commerce a person who had been kidnapped and held for ransom in violation of 18 U.S. C.A. § 1201. No appeal was taken from this conviction. He now comes before this court on appeal from an order denying his motion to vacate sentence filed in the district court pursuant to 28 U.S. C.A. § 2255. His appeal from the denial of a prior motion filed under that section was before us in Hill v. United States, 6 Cir., 1955, 223 F.2d 699, certiorari denied 1955, 350 U.S. 867, 76 S.Ct. 113, where it was held that the district court’s finding that the appellant had the mental capacity to stand trial wTas not, in the light of the record of the district court’s hearing on that issue, open to collateral attack upon a motion to set aside the sentence. Nothing not already considered and disposed of by this court is presented by this appeal.

The order of the district court is accordingly affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 F.2d 84, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-francis-hill-v-united-states-ca6-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack