Wallace Dean Cline v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Wallace Dean Cline v. United States

412 F.2d 323, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12112

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 3, 1969

Docket27077

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 412 F.2d 323 (Wallace Dean Cline 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

Wallace Dean Cline v. United States, 412 F.2d 323, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12112 (5th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM :

Pursuant to new 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.

Wallace Dean Cline appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate judgment and sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm.

Cline is attacking a judgment of conviction for a Dyer Act violation, 18 U.S.C. § 2312, based upon his plea of guilty entered nearly twenty five years ago, September 6, 1944. Moreover, the sentence was completely served more than twenty years prior to the filing of this § 2255 motion. Cline is presently serving several life sentences at Folsom Prison in California, but he did not allege in his § 2255 motion that these sentences were in any way enhanced by the Dyer Act conviction.-

The District Court denied § 2255 relief without an evidentiary hearing, on grounds that the appellant was not in federal custody. This was undoubtedly correct. The Supreme Court has recently held that an application for habeas corpus is not rendered moot by the unconditional release of the prisoner. Car-afas v. LaVallee, 1968, 391 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 20 L.Ed.2d 554. There, however, the prisoner was in custody at the time the petition was filed. Section 2255, however, expressly requires that the applicant be confined by authority of the judgment and sentence of which he complains. Heflin v. United States, 1959, 358 U.S. 415, 420-422, 79 S.Ct. 451, 3 L.Ed.2d 407.

The denial of § 2255 relief is, therefore, affirmed.

We do not have properly before us and thus do not decide whether Cline might have been entitled to coram nobis relief if, as a fact, the California sentences were enhanced because of the fed *324 eral conviction, see United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954); Marcello v. United States, 5 Cir., 1964, 328 F.2d 961, cert. denied 377 U.S. 992, 84 S.Ct. 1916, 12 L.Ed.2d 1045; Azzone v. United States, 8 Cir., 1965, 341 F.2d 417, cert. denied 381 U.S. 943, 85 S.Ct. 1782, 14 L.Ed.2d 706.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM :

Pursuant to new 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.

Wallace Dean Cline appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate judgment and sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm.

Cline is attacking a judgment of conviction for a Dyer Act violation, 18 U.S.C. § 2312, based upon his plea of guilty entered nearly twenty five years ago, September 6, 1944. Moreover, the sentence was completely served more than twenty years prior to the filing of this § 2255 motion. Cline is presently serving several life sentences at Folsom Prison in California, but he did not allege in his § 2255 motion that these sentences were in any way enhanced by the Dyer Act conviction.-

The District Court denied § 2255 relief without an evidentiary hearing, on grounds that the appellant was not in federal custody. This was undoubtedly correct. The Supreme Court has recently held that an application for habeas corpus is not rendered moot by the unconditional release of the prisoner. Car-afas v. LaVallee, 1968, 391 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 20 L.Ed.2d 554. There, however, the prisoner was in custody at the time the petition was filed. Section 2255, however, expressly requires that the applicant be confined by authority of the judgment and sentence of which he complains. Heflin v. United States, 1959, 358 U.S. 415, 420-422, 79 S.Ct. 451, 3 L.Ed.2d 407.

The denial of § 2255 relief is, therefore, affirmed.

We do not have properly before us and thus do not decide whether Cline might have been entitled to coram nobis relief if, as a fact, the California sentences were enhanced because of the fed *324 eral conviction, see United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954); Marcello v. United States, 5 Cir., 1964, 328 F.2d 961, cert. denied 377 U.S. 992, 84 S.Ct. 1916, 12 L.Ed.2d 1045; Azzone v. United States, 8 Cir., 1965, 341 F.2d 417, cert. denied 381 U.S. 943, 85 S.Ct. 1782, 14 L.Ed.2d 706.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

412 F.2d 323, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallace-dean-cline-v-united-states-ca5-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack