United States v. Jose Santo Urrutia

57 F.3d 1067, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21781, 1995 WL 361032
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 16, 1995
Docket94-7392
StatusPublished

This text of 57 F.3d 1067 (United States v. Jose Santo Urrutia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Jose Santo Urrutia, 57 F.3d 1067, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21781, 1995 WL 361032 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

57 F.3d 1067
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Jose Santo URRUTIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 94-7392.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 18, 1995.
Decided June 16, 1995.

Jose Santo Urrutia, Appellant Pro Se. Earle Giovanniello, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court.* United States v. Urrutia, Nos. CR-85-195-A; CA-94-1128-AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 12, 1994). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

*

Although the district court concluded that one of Appellant's double jeopardy claims was barred as successive, the record from the first habeas corpus proceeding was unavailable for review. Nevertheless, the denial of relief was proper. Appellant did not raise the double jeopardy issue on direct appeal and failed to show cause and prejudice for his failure to do so. See United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 (1982). Finally, even if Appellant had shown cause and prejudice, the district court correctly concluded that Appellant's claim failed on the merits. See Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932)

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

Related

Blockburger v. United States
284 U.S. 299 (Supreme Court, 1931)
United States v. Frady
456 U.S. 152 (Supreme Court, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 F.3d 1067, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21781, 1995 WL 361032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jose-santo-urrutia-ca4-1995.