JERRY MACK DORROUGH, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
JERRY MACK DORROUGH, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
440 F.2d 1336
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1971)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner Jerry Mack Dorrough, a Fifth Circuit veteran, seeks once more to escape the finality of his much parsed conviction for robbing and placing in jeopardy the life of a federal postal employee in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2114.1 We have again scrutinized Dorrough’s plea of guilty, and we find all his claims of imperfection without merit in light of our prior decisions. See Dorrough v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 385 F. 2d 887, aff’d en banc, 1968, 397 F. 2d 811.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
. This case represents the fourth time Dorrough has challenged his guilty plea under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. See Dorrough v. United States, 5 Cir. 1964, 327 F. 2d 667; Dorrough v. United States, 5 Cir. 1965, 344 F. 2d 125; Dorrough v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 385 F. 2d 887, aff’d en banc, 1968, 397 F. 2d 811, cert. denied, 1969, 394 U.S. 1019, 89 S.Ct. 1637, 23 L.Ed.2d 44. See also Dorrough v. State of Texas, 5 Cir. 1971, 440 F. 2d 1063.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Estelle v. Dorrough, 420 U.S. 534 (U.S. 1975)
-
Dorrough v. Estelle, 497 F.2d 1007 (5th Cir. 1974)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Dorrough v. United States, 385 F.2d 887 (5th Cir. 1967)
- Dorrough v. State OF Tex., 440 F.2d 1063 (5th Cir. 1971)
- Spivey v. Virginia, 394 U.S. 1019 (U.S. 1969)
- Dancis v. United States, 394 U.S. 1019 (U.S. 1969)
- Dorrough v. United States, 344 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 1965)
- Dorrough v. United States, 397 F.2d 811 (5th Cir. 1968)
- United States v. Otho Warren Vickers, 397 F.2d 811 (4th Cir. 1968)
- Barral v. United States, 327 F.2d 667 (5th Cir. 1964)
- Thomas v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 327 F.2d 667 (10th Cir. 1964)