Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Jerry Mack Dorrough v. United States

Jerry Mack Dorrough v. United States, 440 F.2d 1336 (5th Cir. 1971)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1971-04-22
Topic
general

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. 1 . This case represents the fourth time Dorrough has challenged his guilty plea under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.

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.

Cited by
1 opinion
DORROUGH v. UNITED STATES,440 F.2d 1336(5th Cir. 1971)
Jerry Mack DORROUGH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 30478 Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 22, 1971.
W.B. West, III, Sam Coats, Dallas, Tex., for petitioner-appellant.

Eldon B. Mahon, U.S. Atty., William F. Sanderson, Jr., Charles D. Cabaniss, Asst. U.S. Attys., Dallas, Tex., for respondent-appellee.
Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG, and DYER, Circuit Judges.
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 of18 U.S.C.A. § 2114.1We have again scrutinized Dorrough's plea of guilty, and we find all his claims of imperfection without merit in light of our prior decisions.SeeDorrough 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.Page 1337Page 1338
  1. Rule 18, 5th Cir.; See Isbell Enterprices, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I. ↩
  2. This case represents the fourth time Dorrough has challenged his guilty plea under28 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. ↩