Lawrence Ernest Pasta v. United States
396 F.2d 952, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6248
Opinion
The judgment of the district court denying the motion of appellant to proceed under Section 2255, Title 28 is correct. Appellant’s relief is clearly precluded by the decision of this court in Rosecrans v. United States, 378 F.2d 561 (CA 5-1965) and by the decision of *953 the Third Circuit in United States v. Gallagher, 183 F.2d 342 (CA 3-1950) cert. den. Gallagher v. United States, 340 U.S. 913, 71 S.Ct. 283, 95 L.Ed. 659.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Lawrence Ernest Pasta v. United States, 396 F.2d 952, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6248 (5th Cir. 1968).
396 F.2d 952 (Lawrence Ernest Pasta v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
United States v. Gallagher
183 F.2d 342 (Third Circuit, 1950)
William Sterling Rosecrans, Jr. v. United States
378 F.2d 561 (Fifth Circuit, 1967)
United Gas, Coke & Chemical Workers of America, C. I. O. v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board
340 U.S. 903 (Supreme Court, 1950)
Gallagher v. United States
340 U.S. 913 (Supreme Court, 1951)