O. KARL HOLLINGER, 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.
A motion to vacate a sentence under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 requires the sentence under attack to be the one currently being served, absent special circumstances justifying coram nobis.
Appellant sought to vacate a five-year sentence for interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle while serving a twenty-year sentence for bank …
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
PER CURIAM:
The appellant was given a twenty-year sentence for bank robbery and a five-year sentence for interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle. While serving the first sentence, he sought to have the other sentence vacated by a proceeding under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The district court denied relief.
A proceeding under 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 can be maintained only if the applicant is serving the sentence which is under attack. Under special circum stances a motion made to vacate a sentence during imprisonment for a different offense may be considered as an application for a writ of coram nobis. Young v. United States, 5th Cir. 1964, 337 F. 2d 753. No special circumstance is here shown.
Appellant’s ground for relief is based upon the fact that the consent to the transfer of the case under Rule 20 Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. 18 U.S.C.A., was signed by the Assistant United States District Attorney rather than by the District Attorney himself. There is no merit in the contention.
The order of the district court is
Affirmed.