Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

United States v. Daniel Lee Sappington

527 F.2d 508

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1975-12-18
Topic
employee-benefits-and-executive-compensation

PER CURIAM. Daniel Lee Sappington was convicted of possession of funds stolen from a federally insured savings and loan institution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(c) on October 9, 1968. He appealed that conviction, but pursuant to his motion the appeal was dismissed on June 5, 1969. Long after the time for appeal had run Sappington moved to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, for the reason that he was not sentenced in accordance with the Federal Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5005 et seq., and the mandate of Dorszynski v. United States, 418 U.S. 424, 94 S.Ct. 3042, 41 L.Ed.2d 855 (1974).

Citator

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

Cited by
8 opinions
UNITED STATES v. SAPPINGTON,527 F.2d 508(8th Cir. 1975)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLANT, v. DANIEL LEE SAPPINGTON, APPELLEE.
No. 75-1678.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted December 11, 1975.
Decided December 18, 1975.
Lawrence O. Willbrand, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.

David Rosen, Asst. U.S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Before ROSS, STEPHENSON and WEBSTER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
[1] Daniel Lee Sappington was convicted of possession of funds stolen from a federally insured savings and loan institution in violation of18 U.S.C. § 2113(c) on October 9, 1968. He appealed that conviction, but pursuant to his motion the appeal was dismissed on June 5, 1969. Long after the time for appeal had run Sappington moved to vacate his sentence under28 U.S.C. § 2255, for the reason that he was not sentenced in accordance with the Federal Youth Corrections Act,18 U.S.C. § 5005et seq.,and the mandate ofDorszynski v. United States,418 U.S. 424,94 S.Ct. 3042,41 L.Ed.2d 855(1974). Relief was denied by the district court on February 12, 1975. We reversed this determination and remanded for resentencing, because of inadequate compliance withDorszynski, in Sappington v. UnitedStates,518 F.2d 28(8th Cir. 1975). The district court resentenced Sappington on August 15, 1975, in accordance with our mandate, finding defendant would not have benefited from sentencing under the Youth Corrections Act.

[2] Petitioner now appeals the order of August 15, 1975, but does not allege error in the resentencing procedure. Instead, he alleges two errors in his trial, more than seven years ago, as grounds for appeal.1

[3] Matters not presented to the district court in28 U.S.C. § 2255proceedings may not be considered on appeal.Brown v. UnitedStates,454 F.2d 45,46(8th Cir. 1972). Furthermore, section 2255 is not a substitute for direct appeal, and matters which could have been raised on appeal will not be considered.Page 509Mixen v. United States,469 F.2d 203,205n. 2 (8th Cir. 1972),cert. denied,412 U.S. 906,93 S.Ct. 2297,36 L.Ed.2d 971(1973);Cardarella v. United States,375 F.2d 222,231(8th Cir.),cert. denied,389 U.S. 882,88 S.Ct. 129,19 L.Ed.2d 176(1967);Ethertonv. United States,249 F.2d 410,412,17 Alaska 274(9th Cir. 1957),cert. denied,355 U.S. 919,78 S.Ct. 349,2 L.Ed.2d 278(1958). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
  1. The identical issues which Sappington seeks to raise here were decided adversely to his co-defendant in the direct appeal of her conviction.United States v. Whitney,425 F.2d 169(8th Cir.),cert. denied,399 U.S. 935,90 S.Ct. 2267,26 L.Ed.2d 808(1970). ↩