John Scott, Jr. v. United States

Third Circuit

John Scott, Jr. v. United States

342 F.2d 813, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6274

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 10, 1965

Docket14976_1

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 342 F.2d 813 (John Scott, Jr. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John Scott, Jr. v. United States, 342 F.2d 813, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6274 (3d Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The first count of the indictment before us charges a specific sale of heroin on a day certain at a particular place. It states the amount of heroin appellant allegedly sold. There were four additional counts to the indictment each of which charged successive separate offenses. Appellant was admittedly a convicted second offender under the federal narcotics law, 26 U.S.C. § 7237(e) (2). He was represented by counsel and his plea of guilty to the first count was accepted by the court. Three and one half years after that he made this 2255 motion to set aside his conviction and sentence because the name of the person who purchased the first count heroin from him was not mentioned in the count. Chief Judge Madden in the district court in an exhaustive opinion, held that the case records “conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief under his present petition.” We agree with that ruling. We mention in passing that if the purchaser’s name had been of any importance it could have been promptly obtained by a demand for particulars or by motion to strike the count. We are familiar with Lauer v. United States, 320 F.2d 187 (7 Cir. 1963). That decision is in no way controlling in this appeal.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The first count of the indictment before us charges a specific sale of heroin on a day certain at a particular place. It states the amount of heroin appellant allegedly sold. There were four additional counts to the indictment each of which charged successive separate offenses. Appellant was admittedly a convicted second offender under the federal narcotics law, 26 U.S.C. § 7237(e) (2). He was represented by counsel and his plea of guilty to the first count was accepted by the court. Three and one half years after that he made this 2255 motion to set aside his conviction and sentence because the name of the person who purchased the first count heroin from him was not mentioned in the count. Chief Judge Madden in the district court in an exhaustive opinion, held that the case records “conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief under his present petition.” We agree with that ruling. We mention in passing that if the purchaser’s name had been of any importance it could have been promptly obtained by a demand for particulars or by motion to strike the count. We are familiar with Lauer v. United States, 320 F.2d 187 (7 Cir. 1963). That decision is in no way controlling in this appeal.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

342 F.2d 813, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-scott-jr-v-united-states-ca3-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack