William Howard Dunn v. United States

Sixth Circuit

William Howard Dunn v. United States

259 F.2d 269

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedOctober 13, 1958

Docket13522

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 259 F.2d 269 (William Howard Dunn v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

William Howard Dunn v. United States, 259 F.2d 269 (6th Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to invalidate sentence, which the district court treated as a motion filed pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. A. Section 2255. This matter was previously before this court, and was remanded for further proceedings for the reason that the government had failed to deny an allegation that it had used perjured testimony knowingly in securing appellant’s conviction. Dunn v. United States, 6 Cir., 245 F.2d 407. Other contentions now made here have been determined adversely to appellant. On numerous occasions, appellant has been before this court in proceedings that wholly lacked merit, and which indicate an abuse of judicial process on his part. See Dunn v. United States, 6 Cir., 234 F.2d 219.

Upon remand of the case for determination of the claim of the use of perjured testimony against appellant, the government filed responsive pleadings supported by numerous affidavits. The indefinite nature of the claim of the so-called perjured testimony and the lack of factual allegations as to how a certain witness was persuaded to testify falsely do not add up to use by the government, knowingly, of perjured testimony to secure appellant’s conviction.

The order of the district court dismissing appellant’s motion to vacate sentence was not inconsistent with our directions upon remand, and is, accordingly, affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to invalidate sentence, which the district court treated as a motion filed pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. A. Section 2255. This matter was previously before this court, and was remanded for further proceedings for the reason that the government had failed to deny an allegation that it had used perjured testimony knowingly in securing appellant’s conviction. Dunn v. United States, 6 Cir., 245 F.2d 407. Other contentions now made here have been determined adversely to appellant. On numerous occasions, appellant has been before this court in proceedings that wholly lacked merit, and which indicate an abuse of judicial process on his part. See Dunn v. United States, 6 Cir., 234 F.2d 219.

Upon remand of the case for determination of the claim of the use of perjured testimony against appellant, the government filed responsive pleadings supported by numerous affidavits. The indefinite nature of the claim of the so-called perjured testimony and the lack of factual allegations as to how a certain witness was persuaded to testify falsely do not add up to use by the government, knowingly, of perjured testimony to secure appellant’s conviction.

The order of the district court dismissing appellant’s motion to vacate sentence was not inconsistent with our directions upon remand, and is, accordingly, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 F.2d 269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-howard-dunn-v-united-states-ca6-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack