Newman v. United States

184 F.2d 275
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedJanuary 15, 1951
DocketMisc. 215
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 184 F.2d 275 (Newman v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Newman v. United States, 184 F.2d 275 (D.C. Cir. 1951).

Opinion

PER CURIAM. '

We have before us a petition for reconsideration of .an order of this court denying leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

Petitioner, James Newman, on January 24, 1947, was sentenced in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to imprisonment for five to fifteen years upon his plea of guilty to charges of housebreaking and larceny. On March 29, 1949, the. District Court denied Newman’s motion to vacate sentence, under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, 1 in which he alleged, inter alia, that his arrest had been illegal, and that a confession given by him was inadmissible because given while he was held without being, taken before a committing officer. The trial court denied the motion to vacate, and subsequently denied leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, certifying that the appeal was not taken in good faith. A later petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis addressed to this court was denied by us. The instant petition seeks reconsideration of that order.

Leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is a statutory privilege which may not be had “if the trial court certifies in writing that it [the appeal] is not taken in ■ good faith,” . unless “the adverse' certificate * * * was made without warrant or was itself not in good faith.” 2 It appears that the correctness of the action of the trial court both on the motion to vacate and on the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is beyond question.' Petitioner’s sentence and present confinement resulted not from his alleged illegal arrest and confinement, but rather from the judgment of conviction on his •plea of guilty. McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819, is inapplicable. Blood v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 150 F.2d 640; Roscoe v. United States, 6 Cir., 148 F.2d 333, certiorari denied 325 U.S. 890, 65 S.Ct. 1581, 89 L.Ed. 2003. See also Redmon v. Squier, 9 Cir., 162 F.2d 195. The petition for reconsideration is accordingly

Denied.

1

, 62 Stat 967, as amended.

2

. Dorsey v. Gill, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 9, 30, 148 F.2d 857, certiorari denied, 325 U.S. 890, 65 S.Ct. 1580, 89 L.Ed. 2003; 27 Stat. 252, as amended, now 28 U.S. C.A. § 1915(a). See also Wells v. United States, 318 U.S. 257, 63 S.Ct. 582, 87 L.Ed. 746; Waterman v. McMillan, 77 U.S.App.D.C. 310, 135 F.2d 807.

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

Related

Walker v. State
446 P.2d 886 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1968)
State v. Erving
144 N.W.2d 424 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1966)
Leland A. B. Thomas v. United States
352 F.2d 701 (D.C. Circuit, 1965)
Estes v. United States
198 A.2d 746 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1964)
George A. Watts v. United States
278 F.2d 247 (D.C. Circuit, 1960)
Charles H. Plummer, Jr. v. United States
260 F.2d 729 (D.C. Circuit, 1958)
Alphonzo Edwards v. United States
256 F.2d 707 (D.C. Circuit, 1958)
United States v. Bush
135 F. Supp. 3 (S.D. West Virginia, 1955)
West v. United States
222 F.2d 774 (D.C. Circuit, 1955)
United States v. Newman
126 F. Supp. 94 (District of Columbia, 1954)
Gerringer v. United States
213 F.2d 346 (D.C. Circuit, 1954)
Davis v. United States
214 F.2d 594 (Seventh Circuit, 1954)
United States v. Tucker
213 F.2d 784 (Ninth Circuit, 1954)
Tarkington v. United States
194 F.2d 63 (Fourth Circuit, 1952)
Clough v. Hunter
191 F.2d 516 (Tenth Circuit, 1951)
Marie E. Barwick v. Hinda S. Manheim
189 F.2d 702 (D.C. Circuit, 1951)
Barwick v. Manheim
189 F.2d 702 (D.C. Circuit, 1951)
United States v. Buhler
186 F.2d 780 (Seventh Circuit, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
184 F.2d 275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-v-united-states-cadc-1951.