VAN PELT

v.

CALIFORNIA

Citator

Cited By

• Hall v. United States, 410 F.2d 653 (4th Cir. 1969)
  …2d 365 (9th Cir. 1961); McGann v. United States, 249 F. 2d 431, (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 923, 78 S.Ct. 708, 2 L.Ed.2d 718 (1957). This is properly a matter for direct appeal. Stegall v. United States, 259 F. 2d 83 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 886, 79 S.Ct. 128, 3 L.Ed.2d 114 (1958). In United States v. Martell, 335 F. 2d 764 (4th Cir. 1964), we considered a direct appeal from a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1201. Though the indictment there did not use the word “held,” it charged that Martel…
• United States & Preston Smith v. Marchese, 341 F.2d 782 (9th Cir. 1965)
  …f a legal defect found therein, change or modify, after Rule 35’s sixty day period has expired, a sentence that is itself proper, legal and lawful as a sentence. Richards v. United States, 94 U.S.App. D.C. 85, 212 F. 2d 453, 454 (1954), cert. denied 358 U.S. 886, 79 S.Ct. 126, 3 L.Ed. 2d 114; Affronti v. United States, 145 F. 2d 3 (8th Cir. 1944).2 To reduce a sentence under Rule 35 requires action within a sixty day statutory period. This sixty day period had long expired in each of these cases. Further,…
• Simmons v. United States, 302 F.2d 71 (3d Cir. 1962)
  …he transcript should be furnished and remanded the case. The appellant, however, failed to note that the case came before the identical court eight months later, as reported in Banks v. United States, 258 F. 2d 318 (9 Cir. Aug. 1, 1958), cert. den. 358 U.S. 886, 79 S.Ct. 128, 3 L.Ed.2d 114 (Nov. [*79] 10, 1958), after another order by the district court once more denying the motion under § 2255. This time it was held that contentions (a) that the appellant was denied due process of law because the court’s…