Melvin E. Henley and James C. Henley v. United States of America, Bobby Henley v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Melvin E. Henley and James C. Henley v. United States of America, Bobby Henley v. United States

295 F.2d 510

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedOctober 18, 1961

Docket14500_1

StatusPublished

This text of 295 F.2d 510 (Melvin E. Henley and James C. Henley v. United States of America, Bobby Henley v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Melvin E. Henley and James C. Henley v. United States of America, Bobby Henley v. United States, 295 F.2d 510 (6th Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER.

These appeals are from an order of the United States District Court, for the Middle District of Tennessee, denying the appellants’ motions to vacate their sentences under Section 2255, Title 28 U.S.C., or in the alternative to permit them to withdraw their pleas of guilty pursuant to Rule 32(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C., and grant them new trials.

The District Judge granted the appellants an extended hearing and the appeals were submitted to this Court, on the record of the hearing in the District Court, the briefs of the parties and oral arguments of the United States Attorney and the attorney for the appellant, Bobby Henley.

Upon consideration whereof, the Court finds that the evidence does not sustain the claims made by the appellants and that the judgment of the District Court should be affirmed upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of District Judge William E. Miller.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the District Court be and the same is hereby affirmed.

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

ORDER.

These appeals are from an order of the United States District Court, for the Middle District of Tennessee, denying the appellants’ motions to vacate their sentences under Section 2255, Title 28 U.S.C., or in the alternative to permit them to withdraw their pleas of guilty pursuant to Rule 32(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C., and grant them new trials.

The District Judge granted the appellants an extended hearing and the appeals were submitted to this Court, on the record of the hearing in the District Court, the briefs of the parties and oral arguments of the United States Attorney and the attorney for the appellant, Bobby Henley.

Upon consideration whereof, the Court finds that the evidence does not sustain the claims made by the appellants and that the judgment of the District Court should be affirmed upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of District Judge William E. Miller.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the District Court be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 F.2d 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melvin-e-henley-and-james-c-henley-v-united-states-of-america-bobby-ca6-1961.