Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Chinn v. United States

163 F.2d 876

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1947-10-14
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. Sehon Chinn was indicted, convicted and sentenced, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, for a violation of Section 320, Title 18, of the United States Code Annotated. The sentence was imposed in 1944 and Chinn is now at Alcatraz. In 1947, Chinn filed in the District Court (1) motion for relief from judgment; (2) motion for leave to withdraw his plea of guilty; (3) motion for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum. All of these motions were denied by the District Court and the case is now before us on the appeal of Chinn.

Citator

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

Cited by
3 opinions
SEHON CHINN v. UNITED STATES,163 F.2d 876(4th Cir. 1947)
SEHON CHINN v. UNITED STATES.
No. 5643.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
October 14, 1947.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington; Harry E. Watkins, Judge.

Sehon Chinn was convicted of mail robbery and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and from a judgment,74 F. Supp. 189denying his motions for relief from judgment, for leave to withdraw his plea of guilty, and for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum, he appeals.

Affirmed.
Sehon Chinn, pro se.

Milton J. Ferguson, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Wayne, W. Va. (Leslie E. Given, U.S. Atty., of Charleston, W. Va., on the brief), for appellee.Page 877
Before PARKER, SOPER, and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Sehon Chinn was indicted, convicted and sentenced, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, for a violation of Section 320, Title 18, of the United States Code Annotated. The sentence was imposed in 1944 and Chinn is now at Alcatraz. In 1947, Chinn filed in the District Court (1) motion for relief from judgment; (2) motion for leave to withdraw his plea of guilty; (3) motion for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum. All of these motions were denied by the District Court and the case is now before us on the appeal of Chinn.

Judge Harry E. Watkins, when these motions were denied filed an elaborate opinion in the District Court. That opinion, we think, completely and satisfactorily disposes of the contentions of Chinn and convinces us that this appeal is wholly lacking in merit.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.Page 1011