Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Joseph Moore v. United States

Joseph Moore v. United States, 434 F.2d 1049 (3d Cir. 1970)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1970-12-15
Topic: general

OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM: Appellant pleaded guilty to an information charging him with having violated 18 U.S.C. § 2314. He was subsequently sentenced to a term of five years imprisonment. Appellant filed a motion *1050 to vacate his Federal sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This appeal is from the order of the district court denying that motion. Appellant alleges, inter alia, that he was denied due process of law as a result of Government trickery; that he was denied the right to counsel; and that certain testimony was admitted into evidence erroneously.

Citator

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

MOORE v. UNITED STATES,434 F.2d 1049(3rd Cir. 1970)

Joseph MOORE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 18533.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted on Briefs October 9, 1970.

Decided December 15, 1970.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; Lawrence A. Whipple, Judge.

Joseph Moore, pro se.

Roger S. Steffens, Asst. U.S. Atty., Trenton, N.J. (Frederick B. Lacey, U.S. Atty., Newark, N.J., on the brief), for appellee.

Before KALODNER, STALEY and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Appellant pleaded guilty to an information charging him with having violated18 U.S.C. § 2314. He was subsequently sentenced to a term of five years imprisonment. Appellant filed a motionPage 1050to vacate his Federal sentence pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 2255. This appeal is from the order of the district court denying that motion.

Appellant alleges,inter alia,that he was denied due process of law as a result of Government trickery; that he was denied the right to counsel; and that certain testimony was admitted into evidence erroneously. We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for appellant's contentions.

The order of the district court will be affirmed.