COLEMAN HARPER BELL, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BESPONDENT-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 district court did not err in denying the motion to vacate sentence, as the claims were previously considered and waived.
Appellant filed a second motion to vacate sentence, alleging denial of counsel at sentencing. This claim was previously litigated and denied in a prio…
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 Assistance Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is taken from an order of the district court denying the motion of a federal convict to vacate sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm.1
In this, his second motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, appellant attempts to gain relief by contending that he was denied assistance of counsel at sentencing.
After an evidentiary hearing held on appellant’s first § 2255 motion, the district court found that appellant was not denied the right to counsel, but that he knowingly and voluntarily waived assistance of counsel after being fully advised of his rights in that regard. Bell v. United States, N.D.Miss.1966, 265 F. Supp. 311. This Court affirmed. Bell v. United States, 5th Cir. 1967, 375 F. 2d 763; cert. denied 389 U.S. 881, 88 S.Ct. 121, 19 L.Ed.2d 175.
This same contention having been previously presented and considered on a similar motion, the district court was not in error in denying relief based upon the record and without a, hearing. Sanders v. United States, 1963, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S. Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148; Williams v. United States, 5th Cir. 1962, 309 F. 2d 890, cert. denied 373 U.S. 940, 83 S.Ct. 1545, 10 L.Ed.2d 694; Wells v. United States, 5th Cir. 1964, 210 F. 2d 112. The judgment below is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. Pursuant to 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, 5th Cir. 1969, 409 F. 2d 804, Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5th Cir. 1969, 417 F. 2d 526, Part I.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lafoon v. United States Bd. OF Parole, 441 F.2d 490 (5th Cir. 1971)
Authorities Cited
- Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1963)
- Murphy v. Houma Well Serv., 409 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Huth v. S. Pac. Co., 417 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Chapman v. United States, 389 U.S. 881 (U.S. 1967)
- Williams v. United States, 373 U.S. 940 (U.S. 1963)
- Stevens v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 940 (U.S. 1963)
- Wells v. United States, 210 F.2d 112 (5th Cir. 1954)
- Coleman Harper Bell v. United States, 375 F.2d 763 (5th Cir. 1967)
- Harlan Ray Levey v. United States, 309 F.2d 890 (5th Cir. 1962)
- Williams v. United States, 309 F.2d 890 (5th Cir. 1962)