Mark Lee Overman v. United States

Tenth Circuit

Mark Lee Overman v. United States

322 F.2d 649, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4234

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 13, 1963

Docket7361_1

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 322 F.2d 649 (Mark Lee Overman v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mark Lee Overman v. United States, 322 F.2d 649, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4234 (10th Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is from the dismissal of a petition for habeas corpus. Petitioner is confined in Leavenworth penitentiary under a life sentence imposed in the Western District of Tennessee, Sixth Circuit, for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201. Previously, while an inmate of Atlanta penitentiary, petitioner sought habeas corpus relief which was denied on the ground that his remedy was under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Overman v. Wilkinson, 5 Cir., 256 F.2d 58, certiorari denied 358 U.S. 887, 79 S.Ct. 129, 3 L.Ed.2d 115. Later the sentencing court denied § 2255 relief and its action was affirmed in a comprehensive opinion setting forth the pertinent factual data. See Overman v. United States, 6 Cir., 281 F.2d 497, certiorari denied 368 U.S. 993, 82 S.Ct. 612, 7 L.Ed.2d 530.

The trial court denied relief because the § 2255 remedy is exclusive and because petitioner failed to show that the § 2255 remedy was inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the sentence. Failure to obtain relief under § 2255 does not establish that the remedy so provided is either inadequate or ineffective. Moore v. Taylor, 10 Cir., 289 F.2d 450; Barrett v. United States, 10 Cir., 285 F.2d 758, 759; and Williams v. United States, 10 Cir., 283 F.2d 59, 60.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is from the dismissal of a petition for habeas corpus. Petitioner is confined in Leavenworth penitentiary under a life sentence imposed in the Western District of Tennessee, Sixth Circuit, for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201. Previously, while an inmate of Atlanta penitentiary, petitioner sought habeas corpus relief which was denied on the ground that his remedy was under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Overman v. Wilkinson, 5 Cir., 256 F.2d 58, certiorari denied 358 U.S. 887, 79 S.Ct. 129, 3 L.Ed.2d 115. Later the sentencing court denied § 2255 relief and its action was affirmed in a comprehensive opinion setting forth the pertinent factual data. See Overman v. United States, 6 Cir., 281 F.2d 497, certiorari denied 368 U.S. 993, 82 S.Ct. 612, 7 L.Ed.2d 530.

The trial court denied relief because the § 2255 remedy is exclusive and because petitioner failed to show that the § 2255 remedy was inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the sentence. Failure to obtain relief under § 2255 does not establish that the remedy so provided is either inadequate or ineffective. Moore v. Taylor, 10 Cir., 289 F.2d 450; Barrett v. United States, 10 Cir., 285 F.2d 758, 759; and Williams v. United States, 10 Cir., 283 F.2d 59, 60.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

322 F.2d 649, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mark-lee-overman-v-united-states-ca10-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack