BURDIX

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Hoover v. United States, 268 F.2d 787 (10th Cir. 1959)
  …y period and it satisfied the requirements of Rule 73(a). Shannon v. United States, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 4, 206 F. 2d 479; Gerringer v. United States, 93 U.S.App. D.C. 403, 213 F. 2d 346; Burdix v. United States, 9 Cir., 231 F. 2d 893, certiorari denied, 351 U.S. 975, 76 S.Ct. 1041, 100 L.Ed. 1492. Therefore, the court has jurisdiction to entertain the cause. Apparently the prolix motion under section 2255 was prepared without the assistance of counsel and in. many respects its exact meaning is not entirely cle…
• Hilliard v. United States, 345 F.2d 252 (10th Cir. 1965)
  …ir. 1964). . Simmons v. United States, 230 F. 2d 73 (10th Cir. 1956), cert. den. 351 U.S. 927, 76 S.Ct. 784, 100 L.Ed. 1457; Curry v. United States, 292 F. 2d 576 (10th Cir. 1961); Maupin v. United States, 232 F. 2d 838 (10th Cir. 1956), cert. den. 351 U.S. 975, 76 S.Ct. 1036, 100 L.Ed. 1492, rehrg. den. 352 U.S. 861, 77 S.Ct. 27, 1 L.Ed.2d 72. . “The counsel in this case is, for the most part, to blame for he failed to ‘practice competency of law’ he was moot, a sham, and pretending (sic) to conduct a de…