John William Farr v. United States

Eighth Circuit

John William Farr v. United States

436 F.2d 975

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 5, 1971

Docket20437

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 436 F.2d 975 (John William Farr v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John William Farr v. United States, 436 F.2d 975 (8th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner John William Farr, an inmate of the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to set aside two judgments of conviction and to vacate sentences. Petitioner’s convictions and sentences, totalling a term of twenty-five years imprisonment, followed his guilty pleas in the Western District of Missouri in 1955 on charges of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113. Petitioner alleged that the proceedings at which the district judge accepted his pleas of guilty failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically Rule 7(a) (waiver of indictment) and Rule 11 (guilty pleas). In denying petitioner’s § 2255 motion, the district court, Judge Elmo B. Hunter, carefully and adequately demonstrated why appellant Farr is entitled to no relief. Farr v. United States, 314 F.Supp. 1125 (W. D.Mo. 1970). We adopt that opinion on appeal.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner John William Farr, an inmate of the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to set aside two judgments of conviction and to vacate sentences. Petitioner’s convictions and sentences, totalling a term of twenty-five years imprisonment, followed his guilty pleas in the Western District of Missouri in 1955 on charges of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113. Petitioner alleged that the proceedings at which the district judge accepted his pleas of guilty failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically Rule 7(a) (waiver of indictment) and Rule 11 (guilty pleas). In denying petitioner’s § 2255 motion, the district court, Judge Elmo B. Hunter, carefully and adequately demonstrated why appellant Farr is entitled to no relief. Farr v. United States, 314 F.Supp. 1125 (W. D.Mo. 1970). We adopt that opinion on appeal.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

436 F.2d 975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-william-farr-v-united-states-ca8-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack