WILL PARKS CLAY, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
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 appellant's current claims are not cognizable under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 and do not warrant collateral attack.
Appellant, previously convicted of evading a wagering occupational tax, sought relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. His current complaints relate to motio…
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 Habeas Corpus Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of evading the wagering occupational tax. Int.Rev.Code of 1939, §§ 2707(c), 3290, 3294(c), 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 2707(c), 3290, 3294(c) (1952 ed. ). We affirmed this conviction 5 Cir., 246 F. 2d 298, and certiorari was denied 355 U.S. 863, 78 S.Ct. 96, 2 L.Ed.2d 69. In fact, this is now his fourth appearance before this Court. Clay v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 246 F. 2d 298, certiorari denied 355 U.S. 863, 78 S.Ct. 96, 2 L.Ed.2d 69; Clay v. United States, 5 Cir., 1956, 239 F. 2d 196; Clay v. United States, 1955, 5 Cir., 218 F. 2d 483.
As he this time asserts his rights under the reviewing procedure of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, he must tread the narrow trail of relief it affords. It is not enough that he point an accusing finger at some supposed slip on the part of the Judge during the long history of this case. He must demonstrate that, in the language of Section 2255, “the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence wasin excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack * * This he has failed to do.
His present complaint relates to motions for the production of documents and disclosure of informants. Whatever the merits of these contentions might have been on appeal, they are not open here. Bowen v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 260 F. 2d 266; Bowen v. United States, 5 Cir., 1951, 192 F. 2d 515. Moreover, it cannot be said in this case that Clay has been denied an open ear for these complaints. He not only could have had an appeal, he had one, 246 F. 2d 298. There it ended for all matters save those that can pass through the needle's eye of Section 2255.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aeby v. United States, 267 F.2d 540 (5th Cir. 1959)
Authorities Cited
- Will Parks Clay v. United States, 239 F.2d 196 (5th Cir. 1956)
- McDonald v. United States, 355 U.S. 863 (U.S. 1957)
- Bowen v. United States, 192 F.2d 515 (5th Cir. 1951)
- Will Parks Clay and Mattie Bell Anderson v. United States, 246 F.2d 298 (5th Cir. 1957)
- Will Parks Clay v. United States, 218 F.2d 483 (5th Cir. 1955)
- Bowen v. United States, 260 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1958)