GEORGE BRUCE HALLING, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT-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 contentions raised no error of law or fact, and the trial court's denial of the motion to vacate conviction and sentence was correct.
The appellant was convicted of selling cocaine and transferring marihuana. After his direct appeal was affirmed, he filed a motion to vacate his convi…
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 Perjured Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of a motion to vacate a federal conviction and sentence, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (1959). We affirm.1
Represented by court-appointed counsel, the appellant was convicted upon trial by jury of selling cocaine in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 4705(a) and 7237(b) (1967), and of being a transferror of marihuana in violation of 26 U.S. C.A. §§ 4742(a) and 7237(b) (1967). On direct appeal the judgment was affirmed. Halling v. United States, 405 F. 2d 179 (5th Cir. 1968).
In this § 2255 proceeding Hailing contends: (1) that he was mentally incompetent at the time of commission of the offense and at the time of trial; (2) his appointed counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance; (3) perjured testimony was introduced by the government at his trial; (4) the government suppressed evidence favorable to him; (5) harsher punishment was imposed than if he had pled guilty; and (6) the convictions are invalid under Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57 (1969).
With regard to the last contention, Leary is inapplicable to the offenses for which Hailing stands convicted. Minor v. United States, 396 U.S. 87, 90 S.Ct. 284, 24 L.Ed.2d 283 (1969). Our examination of the record with reference to the appellant's first five assertions, reveals no error of law or fact in the careful and thoroughgoing proceedings conducted by the trial judge. We
Affirm.2
. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s Local Rule 9(c) (2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by F.R.A P. 31. Kimbrough v. Beto, 412 F. 2d 981 (5th Cir. 1969).
. See Local Rule 21. NLRB v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers, 430 F. 2d 966 (5th Cir. 1970).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (U.S. 1969)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO, 430 F.2d 966 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Minor v. United States, 396 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1969)
- Kimbrough v. Beto, 412 F.2d 981 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Halling v. United States, 405 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1968)