Case ID: f2d_184/html/0939-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER -CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HASTINGS et al. v. UNITED STATES.
    No. 12583.
    United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
    Oct. 25, 1950.
    
      Merle D. Cohn, Seattle, Wash.,, for appellant. - ■
    J. -Charles ‘ Dennis, U. S. Atty., -Vaughn1 Evans, Asst Ul S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., -for appellee.
    Before DENMAN, -Chief Judge, and HEALY and POPE, Circuit. Judges.
   PER -CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a. judgment in a proceeding under 28 U.S.-C.A. § 2255, denying -appellants’ motion to vacate a .judgment sentencing them-to a confinement for two years for the possession of a sawed-off shotgun, a“-firearm” which had not been registered, in violation of 26 U.S.-C.A. § 3261: The ground of the motion as urged here is that the verdict of guilty is without evidence to support it. and that the tria.1 judge gave ’ an erroneous instruction. There was no appeal "from the judgment of conviction and* what appellants seek in this § 2255 proceeding is -a retrial of their case.

.¡[1-4] A proceeding under § -2255 is intended as, a -substitute for habeas, corpus-. The contentions;-here urged would,not be considered in a.habeas corpus proceeding. We. agree with the opinion o'f . the Fourth Circuit in Taylor v. United States, 4 Cir., 177 F.2d 194, . which states, at, page 195, “Prisoners adjudged guilty of crime should understand that 28 U.S.-C.A. § 2255 does not give them the right to try over again the cases in which they have been adjudged guilty. Questions as "to the sufficiency of •■the evidence of involving errors either of law or of fact must be raised toy timely appeal -from the sentence if the petitioner desires to raise them. Only where the sentence is void or otherwise subject to collateral -attack may the attack be made by motion under 28 U.S.-C.A. § 2255, which was enacted to - take the place of habeas carpus in such- cases and was intended to -confer no broader right of attack than might have been made in its absence by habeas -corpus.”

The judgment is affirmed.