Source: http://openjurist.org/399/f2d/492/williams-v-united-states
Timestamp: 2014-07-31 17:49:49
Document Index: 593893612

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2312', '§ 2255', '§ 2312', '§ 902', '§ 4208', '§ 1291', '§ 2312', '§ 2255', '§ 2255']

399 F2d 492 Williams v. United States | OpenJurist
399 F. 2d 492 - Williams v. United States	Home399 f2d 492 williams v. united states
399 F2d 492 Williams v. United States 399 F.2d 492
Truman Adonis WILLIAMS, Appellant,v.UNITED STATES of America, Appellee (two cases).
No. 21347-A.
No. 22388.
See 89 S.Ct. 650.
Jerome J. Cate (argued), Billings, Mont., for appellant.
Arthur W. Ayers, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Moody Brickett, U. S. Atty., Billings, Mont., for appellee.
Before BARNES and MERRILL, Circuit Judges, and BOWEN,* District Judge.
BOWEN, District Judge:
These two cases, one numbered No. 21347-A and the other No. 22388, involve separate appeals in different post trial proceedings growing out of the convictions and sentences of the appellant in two cases tried in the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Billings Division. In this Court both appeals were heard and submitted together, and we deal with both of them in this opinion. In No. 21347-A appellant was represented by counsel who argued that case before us, as did appellee's counsel. In No. 22388, in the trial court and in this Court, appellant proceeded without counsel, and he and appellee in this Court submitted No. 22388 on briefs without oral argument.
In No. 21347-A, the trial court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 2312 and 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In No. 22388, the trial court had jurisdiction under Rule 35, F.R.Cr.P., 18 U.S.C. § 2312, 15 U.S. C. § 902(e), and 18 U.S.C. § 4208(a) (2).
In both No. 21347-A and No. 22388, this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U. S.C. § 1291.
We now first consider case No. 21347-A. In that case, appellant was in 1966 by the trial court convicted of a Dyer Act (18 U.S.C. § 2312) violation and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment from which he appealed to this Court, but that appeal was dismissed upon stipulation of counsel for appellant and the appellee Government (Trial court's Finding No. 1, Exh. "A", appellant's Reply Brief). Thereafter appellant filed in the trial court a § 2255 motion to vacate his 3-year sentence because of inadequacy of his counsel's service in that dismissed appeal.
Pursuant to that § 2255 motion to vacate his sentenc