Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Pierce v. United States

157 F.2d 848

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1946-11-06
Topic
bankruptcy

HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge. Petitioner seeks by an extraordinary motion in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis to obtain relief from a judgment which was affirmed here.1 Following the practice approved in Strang v. United States, 5 Cir., 53 F.2d 820, Young v. United States, 5 Cir., 138 F.2d 838, Reid v. United States, 5 Cir., 149 F.2d 334, and Garrison v.

Citator

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

Authority status
pending
Cited by
6 opinions
PIERCE v. UNITED STATES,157 F.2d 848(5th Cir. 1946)
PIERCE v. UNITED STATES.
No. 11746.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
November 6, 1946.
Application by Joel Thomas Pierce for leave to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis, to obtain relief from a judgment previously affirmed by the court,146 F.2d 84, which application was opposed by the United States of America.

Application denied.
Joel Thomas Pierce, of Atlanta, Ga., in pro. per., for petitioner.

Green B. Everitt, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Savannah, Ga., for respondent.
Before SIBLEY, HUTCHESON, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner seeks by an extraordinary motion in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis to obtain relief from a judgment which was affirmed here.1Following the practice approved in Strang v. United States, 5 Cir.,53 F.2d 820, Young v. United States, 5 Cir.,138 F.2d 838, Reid v. United States, 5 Cir.,149 F.2d 334, and Garrison v. United States, 5 Cir.,154 F.2d 106, he is here asking our leave to file his petition in the court of his conviction.

If, therefore, the petition alleged facts which, if true, would show such a denial of due process as to invalidate the trial, we ought to, and would, grant the relief prayed.2Consisting, however, merely of allegations in effect that errors were committed and that false and perjured testimony was received, the petition presents nothing more than an effort to retry the case.

Mooney v. Holohan,294 U.S. 103,55 S. Ct. 340,79 L.Ed. 791, 98 A.L.R. 406 and Garrison v. United States, 5 Cir.,154 F.2d 106, upon which petitioner relies, are not authorities for, indeed they are authorities against, granting the leave he seeks, and his petition will be denied.Page 849Page 851
  1. 5 Cir.,146 F.2d 84, certiorari denied324 U.S. 873,65 S.Ct. 1011,89 L.Ed. 1427. ↩
  2. Garrison v. United States, 5 Cir.,154 F.2d 106; United States v. Steese, 3 Cir.,144 F.2d 439; Barber v. United States, 4 Cir.,142 F.2d 804. ↩