United States v. Louis Vaughn Hooper

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Louis Vaughn Hooper

429 F.2d 583, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7857

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 4, 1970

Docket27477

StatusPublished

This text of 429 F.2d 583 (United States v. Louis Vaughn Hooper) 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

United States v. Louis Vaughn Hooper, 429 F.2d 583, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7857 (5th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The principal contentions in this appeal 1 from a conviction of interstate transportation of falsely made and forged securities, in violation of 18 U. S.C. § 2314, are that appellant’s signing of the initial Rule 20 Consent was made without effective consultation with his court-appointed attorney, and that such error because of his agitated condition was not cured by his signing a subsequent Rule 20 Consent. These points were not raised before the district court, and the record does not present sufficient facts for determination of the questions now asserted on direct appeal. Neither were any facts developed concerning the allegations of a purported “trade” with the Assistant United States Attorney for a shorter sentence than that imposed by the District Judge.

The judgment is affirmed, without prejudice to the right of appellant to present his contentions by other proceedings available to him. See Moore v. United States, 5 Cir., 1966, 359 F.2d 852; Tyree v. United States, 5 Cir., 1965, 351 F.2d 611.

1

. Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 804, Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 526, Part I.

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

PER CURIAM:

The principal contentions in this appeal 1 from a conviction of interstate transportation of falsely made and forged securities, in violation of 18 U. S.C. § 2314, are that appellant’s signing of the initial Rule 20 Consent was made without effective consultation with his court-appointed attorney, and that such error because of his agitated condition was not cured by his signing a subsequent Rule 20 Consent. These points were not raised before the district court, and the record does not present sufficient facts for determination of the questions now asserted on direct appeal. Neither were any facts developed concerning the allegations of a purported “trade” with the Assistant United States Attorney for a shorter sentence than that imposed by the District Judge.

The judgment is affirmed, without prejudice to the right of appellant to present his contentions by other proceedings available to him. See Moore v. United States, 5 Cir., 1966, 359 F.2d 852; Tyree v. United States, 5 Cir., 1965, 351 F.2d 611.

1

. Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 804, Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 526, Part I.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

429 F.2d 583, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-louis-vaughn-hooper-ca5-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack