Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Jerry Mack Dorrough v. United States

Jerry Mack Dorrough v. United States, 397 F.2d 811 (5th Cir. 1968)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1968-07-25
Topic
litigation

PER CURIAM. The District Court denied a motion to vacate a sentence imposed pursuant to a plea of guilty. A panel of this Court, with one Judge dissenting, affirmed, 385 F.2d 887 (1967). On motion of a Judge of this Court in regular active service the appeal was ordered considered en banc. Upon such consideration, for the reasons stated in the published opinion of the majority of the panel, the Judgment of the District Court is Affirmed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Jerry Mack Dorrough v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
4 opinions
DORROUGH v. UNITED STATES,397 F.2d 811(5th Cir. 1968)
Jerry Mack DORROUGH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 24017.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 25, 1968.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas; Sarah Tilghman Hughes, Judge.
W.B. West, III, Dallas, Tex., for appellant.

B.H. Timmins, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., for appellee.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and WISDOM, GEWIN, BELL, THORNBERRY, COLEMAN, GOLDBERG, AINSWORTH, GODBOLD, DYER, SIMPSON and CLAYTON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The District Court denied a motion to vacate a sentence imposed pursuant to a plea of guilty. A panel of this Court, with one Judge dissenting, affirmed,385 F.2d 887(1967). On motion of a Judge of this Court in regular active service the appeal was ordered considered en banc.

Upon such consideration, for the reasons stated in the published opinion of the majority of the panel, the Judgment of the District Court is

Affirmed.

Judges WISDOM, THORNBERRY, GOLDBERG, GODBOLD and SIMPSON dissent for the reasons set out in Judge GOLDBERG's dissenting opinion,385 F.2d 887at 894.Page 812