PIERCE
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the petition for a writ of error coram nobis did not allege facts sufficient to show a denial of due process and thus denied the petitioner's request.
Petitioner sought relief from a prior judgment via an extraordinary motion in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis. The petition alleged errors w…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Writ Of Error Coram Nobis cases and more on FLexlaw
HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner seeks by an extraordinary motion in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis to obtain relief from a judgment which was affirmed here.1 Following the practice approved in Strang v. United States,5 Cir., 53 F. 2d 820, Young v. United States,5 Cir., 138 F. 2d 838, Reid v. United States,5 Cir., 149 F. 2d 334, and Garrison v. United States,5 Cir., 154 F. 2d 106, he is here asking our leave to file his petition in the court of his conviction.
If, therefore, the petition alleged facts which, if true; would show such a denial of due process as to invalidate the trial, we ought to, and would, grant the relief prayed.2 Consisting, however, merely of allegations in effect that errors were committed and that false and perjured testimony was received, the petition presents nothing more than an effort to retry the case.
Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 55 S. Ct. 340, 79 L.Ed. 791, 98 A.L.R. 406 and Garrison v. United States,5 Cir., 154 F. 2d 106, upon which petitioner relies, are not authorities for, indeed they are authorities against, granting the leave he seeks, and his petition will be denied.
Garrison v. United States,5 Cir., 154 F. 2d 106; United States v. Steese, 8 Cir., 144 F. 2d 439; Barber v. United States, 4 Cir., 142 F. 2d 804.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1954)
-
Emil Richard Yates v. United States, 308 F.2d 737 (10th Cir. 1962)
-
Farnsworth v. United States, 232 F.2d 59 (D.C. Cir. 1956)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1935)
- Strang v. United States, 53 F.2d 820 (5th Cir. 1931)
- United States v. Steese, 144 F.2d 439 (3d Cir. 1944)
- Mason v. Paradise Irr. Dist., 149 F.2d 334 (9th Cir. 1945)
- Garrison v. United States, 154 F.2d 106 (5th Cir. 1946)
- Pierce v. United States, 146 F.2d 84 (5th Cir. 1944)
- E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Wright, 324 U.S. 873 (U.S. 1945)
- Young v. United States, 138 F.2d 838 (5th Cir. 1943)
- O'Keith v. Johnston, 324 U.S. 873 (U.S. 1945)