Louis Vernell, Jr. v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Louis Vernell, Jr. v. United States

559 F.2d 963, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 11455

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 21, 1977

Docket76-3929

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 559 F.2d 963 (Louis Vernell, Jr. 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

Louis Vernell, Jr. v. United States, 559 F.2d 963, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 11455 (5th Cir. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

*964 PER CURIAM:

Louis Vernell appeals from the denial on September 7, 1976, of his Motion for Rehearing and Vacation of an Order dismissing his § 2255 petition. The Motion for Rehearing and Vacation of an Order requests reconsideration of issues which have been raised and reviewed in earlier motions and appeals. Vernell still asks that his conviction be overturned because of the same “newly discovered evidence” which was before this court at the time of his first direct appeal and because of the same perjured testimony and alleged wiretap which was before this court on the appeal from the denial of the motion for a new trial. The grounds raised in the instant § 2255 petition have been previously decided by both the district court and this court in petition for rehearing, motion for new trial, and the direct appeal therefrom. Accordingly, we AFFIRM. See, e.g., Blackwell v. United States, 429 F.2d 514 (5 Cir. 1970); Del Genio v. United States, 352 F.2d 304 (5 Cir. 1965).

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

*964 PER CURIAM:

Louis Vernell appeals from the denial on September 7, 1976, of his Motion for Rehearing and Vacation of an Order dismissing his § 2255 petition. The Motion for Rehearing and Vacation of an Order requests reconsideration of issues which have been raised and reviewed in earlier motions and appeals. Vernell still asks that his conviction be overturned because of the same “newly discovered evidence” which was before this court at the time of his first direct appeal and because of the same perjured testimony and alleged wiretap which was before this court on the appeal from the denial of the motion for a new trial. The grounds raised in the instant § 2255 petition have been previously decided by both the district court and this court in petition for rehearing, motion for new trial, and the direct appeal therefrom. Accordingly, we AFFIRM. See, e.g., Blackwell v. United States, 429 F.2d 514 (5 Cir. 1970); Del Genio v. United States, 352 F.2d 304 (5 Cir. 1965).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

559 F.2d 963, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 11455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louis-vernell-jr-v-united-states-ca5-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack