United States v. Salzano

Second Circuit

United States v. Salzano

241 F.2d 849, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3525

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 5, 1957

DocketNo. 245, Docket 24061

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 241 F.2d 849 (United States v. Salzano) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second 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. Salzano, 241 F.2d 849, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3525 (2d Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from denial of a second motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate a sentence of eight years’ imprisonment on a plea of guilty to violation of the narcotic laws, 21 U.S.C. §§ 173, 174, as a second offender. Petitioner’s claims of invalid search, illegal seizure of evidence and lack of proof are disposed of by his guilty plea. The information was properly filed. He was represented by counsel throughout the criminal proceedings. His attack on the sentence as a second offender is without substance. His claim that the court clerk was illegally practicing law in reading the information to him is nonsense. All petitioner’s contentions were fully considered by Judge Kaufman and adequately discussed in his memorandum opinion dated February 3, 1956, D.C., 138 F.Supp. 72. We find no merit in the appeal.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from denial of a second motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate a sentence of eight years’ imprisonment on a plea of guilty to violation of the narcotic laws, 21 U.S.C. §§ 173, 174, as a second offender. Petitioner’s claims of invalid search, illegal seizure of evidence and lack of proof are disposed of by his guilty plea. The information was properly filed. He was represented by counsel throughout the criminal proceedings. His attack on the sentence as a second offender is without substance. His claim that the court clerk was illegally practicing law in reading the information to him is nonsense. All petitioner’s contentions were fully considered by Judge Kaufman and adequately discussed in his memorandum opinion dated February 3, 1956, D.C., 138 F.Supp. 72. We find no merit in the appeal.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 F.2d 849, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-salzano-ca2-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack