Case Name: James BUSH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1971-02-15
Citations: 438 F.2d 641
Docket Number: No. 25670
Parties: James BUSH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 438
Pages: 641–642

Head Matter:
James BUSH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 25670.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Feb. 15, 1971.
James Bush, in pro. per.
Sidney I. Lezak, U. S. Atty., Joseph E. Buley, Asst. U. S. Atty., Portland, Or., for appellee.
Before HAMLEY, ELY, and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Bush appeals from the denial of his petition, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, attacking a fifteen-year sentence imposed in 1963 for a second conviction for illegal sale of narcotics. He alleges that his conviction resulted from illegal evidence obtained through electronic eavesdropping by federal agents. The eavesdropping was of a telephone conversation between Bush and a government informant, for which the informant had given consent. We affirm.
Bush relies primarily upon Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). Such reliance is misplaced for Katz is not to be applied retroactively. Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244, 89 S.Ct. 1030, 22 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969); Lopez v. United States, 409 F.2d 1351 (9th Cir. 1969). We recognize that the law pertaining to electronic eavesdropping may undergo some change as a result of the Supreme Court's pending decision in United States v. White, 405 F.2d 838 (9th Cir.), cert. granted, 394 U.S. 957, 89 S.Ct. 1305, 22 L.Ed.2d 559 (1969), restored for reargument, 396 U.S. 1035, 90 S.Ct. 677, 24 L.Ed.2d 679 (1970). But as the law now stands, Bush's conviction and sentence are valid. Should the Supreme Court's decision in White operate in Bush's favor, he could, of course, institute a new proceeding under § 2255.
Affirmed.
. White was reargued before the Supreme Court on October 20, 1970.