JOHN DAVID RIDENOUR, 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 affirmed the order, holding that the defendant's contention regarding his sentence was precluded by prior decisions and that a second or successive motion for similar relief would not be entertained.
The defendant attacked his sentence under the Youth Corrections Act, claiming he lacked notice of its possible use. He also raised a new issue on appe…
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 Successive Motions For Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The order appealed from is affirmed.
On this appeal, Ridenour attacks his sentence under the Youth Corrections Act. At the time of his plea of guilty, he had notice of its possible use. His contention is precluded by our decisions in Standley v. United States, 9 Cir., 318 F. 2d 700 and United States v. Rehfield, 9 Cir., 416 F. 2d 273. See also Carter v. United States, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 123, 306 F. 2d 283.
He raised another point here not raised below this time.* Thus, we do not consider it.
*
In the record of the District of Arizona, we find the following Ridenour petitions: Civ. 190 Globe; Civ. 2533 Tuscon; Civ. 10-10 Globe; Misc. 124 Tucson; Civ. 70-70 Tucson; 70-135 Tucson; Civ. 70-151 Tucson; 70-159 Tucson; Misc. 71-141 Tucson; and Misc. 71-142 Tucson. Civil 70-70 Tucson is now here as our No. 26,068. 70-151 is here as our No. 71-1160.
One sentence in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 says, “A sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner.” The time has come to apply it. See Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ridenour v. United States, 446 F.2d 57 (9th Cir. 1971)
Authorities Cited
- Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1963)
- Carter v. United States, 306 F.2d 283 (D.C. Cir. 1962)
- Standley v. United States, 318 F.2d 700 (9th Cir. 1963)
- United States v. Rehfield, 416 F.2d 273 (9th Cir. 1969)