LARRY V. COOPER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-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 judgment and sentence because the record refuted the appellant's claim of a Rule 11 violation.
Appellant was convicted upon a guilty plea for interstate transportation of a firearm with a removed serial number. His prior attempt to withdraw the …
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 Judgment And Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from the district court’s denial of a motion to vacate judgment and sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm.
The appellant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of interstate transportation of a firearm from which the serial number had been removed, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 902(i) [now 18 U.S.C. § 922].
The district court’s denial of the appellant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty was affirmed by this Court. United States v. Cooper, 5th Cir. 1969, 410 F. 2d 1128. There we upheld a ruling that appellant’s contention of involuntariness of the plea was refuted by the files and records. Our decision was without prejudice to appellant’s right to present his contention of failure to comply with the provisions of Rule 11, F.R. Crim.P. to the district court in the first instance. Appellant thereafter sought relief in the district court, that court denied relief, and this appeal followed.
The district court held that there was no need to conduct an evidentiary hearing because appellant’s allegation that Rule 11 was violated is refuted by the files and records. The record shows that the sentencing judge personally inquired whether the petitioner understood the nature of the charge against him and that the judge satisfied himself that there was a factual basis for the plea. On the facts of this case, as clearly reflected in the record, we can only conclude that Rule 11 was adequately complied with, and therefore we affirm the district court’s denial of relief.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vasi v. United States, 439 F.2d 717 (5th Cir. 1971)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Cooper, 410 F.2d 1128 (5th Cir. 1969)