O. Karl Hollinger v. United States

345 F.2d 179, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5648
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMay 7, 1965
Docket21816_1
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 345 F.2d 179 (O. Karl Hollinger 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
O. Karl Hollinger v. United States, 345 F.2d 179, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5648 (5th Cir. 1965).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appellant was given a twenty-year sentence for bank robbery and a five-year sentence for interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle. While serving the first sentence, he sought to have the other sentence vacated by a proceeding under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The district court denied relief.

A proceeding under 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 can be maintained only if the applicant is serving the sentence which is under attack. Under special circum *180 stances a motion made to vacate a sentence during imprisonment for a different offense may be considered as an application for a writ of coram nobis. Young v. United States, 5th Cir. 1964, 337 F.2d 753. No special circumstance is here shown.

Appellant’s ground for relief is based upon the fact that the consent to the transfer of the case under Rule 20 Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. 18 U.S.C.A., was signed by the Assistant United States District Attorney rather than by the District Attorney himself. There is no merit in the contention.

The order of the district court is

Affirmed.

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

Related

Newton v. United States
329 F. Supp. 90 (S.D. Texas, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
345 F.2d 179, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/o-karl-hollinger-v-united-states-ca5-1965.