Valentine John Karp v. United States

Tenth Circuit

Valentine John Karp v. United States

311 F.2d 216, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3597

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedNovember 19, 1962

Docket7134

StatusPublished

This text of 311 F.2d 216 (Valentine John Karp v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Valentine John Karp v. United States, 311 F.2d 216, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3597 (10th Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Karp was charged in the Northern District of Iowa with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), tried by a jury, found guilty and sentenced to a term of 15 years. On appeal his conviction was affirmed, 8 Cir., 277 F.2d 843, and certiorari was denied 364 U.S. 842, 81 S.Ct. 80, 5 L.Ed.2d 65. An application for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was denied by the sentencing court and its action was affirmed on appeal, 8 Cir., 296 F.2d 564, certiorari denied 369 U.S. 867, 82 S.Ct. 1034, 8 L.Ed.2d 86.

Karp, a prisoner in the Leavenworth, Kansas, Federal Penitentiary, filed a petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis was denied, and he did not appeal. He then filed a second petition for habeas corpus in the same court. After full hearing the petition was dismissed and no appeal taken. Karp then filed a third petition for habeas corpus in the same court. After full hearing the petition was dismissed. Leave to appeal in forma pauperis was granted and an attorney was appointed to represent Karp on appeal.

Karp filed in this court a brief pro se. At the time of oral argument the attorney appointed for Karp appeared and informed the court that after conscientious investigation he was convinced that the appeal was frivolous.

The court has reviewed the record, is satisfied that counsel has diligently investigated the grounds of appeal, and agrees with counsel’s evaluation of the case. ' See Ellis v. United States, 356 U. S. 674, 675, 78 S.Ct. 974, 2 L.Ed.2d 1060. The grounds asserted for relief are matters reviewable on direct appeal and not on collateral attack. No showing is made that § 2255 relief is either ineffective or inadequate.

The situation discloses a flagrant abuse of judicial process. Such repeated efforts to litigate the same issues would not be condoned in the case of a litigant represented by retained counsel and able to pay costs. The appeal is frivolous and is dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Karp was charged in the Northern District of Iowa with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), tried by a jury, found guilty and sentenced to a term of 15 years. On appeal his conviction was affirmed, 8 Cir., 277 F.2d 843, and certiorari was denied 364 U.S. 842, 81 S.Ct. 80, 5 L.Ed.2d 65. An application for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was denied by the sentencing court and its action was affirmed on appeal, 8 Cir., 296 F.2d 564, certiorari denied 369 U.S. 867, 82 S.Ct. 1034, 8 L.Ed.2d 86.

Karp, a prisoner in the Leavenworth, Kansas, Federal Penitentiary, filed a petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis was denied, and he did not appeal. He then filed a second petition for habeas corpus in the same court. After full hearing the petition was dismissed and no appeal taken. Karp then filed a third petition for habeas corpus in the same court. After full hearing the petition was dismissed. Leave to appeal in forma pauperis was granted and an attorney was appointed to represent Karp on appeal.

Karp filed in this court a brief pro se. At the time of oral argument the attorney appointed for Karp appeared and informed the court that after conscientious investigation he was convinced that the appeal was frivolous.

The court has reviewed the record, is satisfied that counsel has diligently investigated the grounds of appeal, and agrees with counsel’s evaluation of the case. ' See Ellis v. United States, 356 U. S. 674, 675, 78 S.Ct. 974, 2 L.Ed.2d 1060. The grounds asserted for relief are matters reviewable on direct appeal and not on collateral attack. No showing is made that § 2255 relief is either ineffective or inadequate.

The situation discloses a flagrant abuse of judicial process. Such repeated efforts to litigate the same issues would not be condoned in the case of a litigant represented by retained counsel and able to pay costs. The appeal is frivolous and is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

311 F.2d 216, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valentine-john-karp-v-united-states-ca10-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack