CARL MCFADDEN, 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 held that the petitioner's allegations had already been fully considered and were appropriate for summary affirmance.
Petitioner filed a fourth motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging the government suppressed evidence of a witness's interest in testifying due to a pl…
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 Summary Affirmance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner appeals from a denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, praying that the court set aside and vacate his conviction and order a new trial.
The prior history of this case will be found in McFadden v. United States, 372 F. 2d 598 (8th Cir. 1967), cert. denied 387 U.S. 931, 87 S.Ct. 2055, 18 L.Ed.2d 993 (1967); McFadden v. United States, 317 F.Supp. 926 (E.D.Mo.1970); McFadden v. United States, 436 F. 2d 1384 (8th Cir. 1971); United States v. Stewart, 445 F. 2d 897 (8th Cir. 1971); McFadden v. United States, 343 F.Supp. 402 (E.D.Mo.1972), and McFadden v. United States, 463 F. 2d 730 (8th Cir. 1972), rehearing denied July 26, 1972.
We are now considering the fourth § 2255 motion. It asserts, in substance, that there was suppression by the government of evidence relating to the interest of a government witness in testifying for the government, asserting that the government had made a plea-bargaining “deal” with the witness. With a slight change in verbiage this is the same charge as made in the third § 2255 motion, which was denied after plenary-hearing with respect thereto, the denial thereof being affirmed by this court. The fourth, now before us, is likewise denied, and for the same reasons.
As we held in a somewhat similar situation in Patrick v. United States, 466 F. 2d 502 (8th Cir. 1972), an appeal from a dismissal of a fourth § 2255 motion,
A review of the record convinces us that Patrick’s allegations have already been fully considered in the federal courts and that this case is appropriate for summary affirmance.
Accordingly, the order, D.C., 362 F.Supp. 1106, dismissing petitioner’s motion to vacate and set aside sentence is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wilcox v. Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc., 387 U.S. 931 (U.S. 1967)
- Am. Guild of Variety Artists v. Smith, 387 U.S. 931 (U.S. 1967)
- Kibby v. United States, 372 F.2d 598 (8th Cir. 1967)
- United States v. Stewart, 445 F.2d 897 (8th Cir. 1971)
- McFADDEN v. United States, 463 F.2d 730 (8th Cir. 1972)
- United States v. Reggie Isaac, 466 F.2d 502 (5th Cir. 1972)
- McFADDEN v. United States, 436 F.2d 1384 (8th Cir. 1971)
- United States v. Jones, 436 F.2d 1384 (5th Cir. 1971)