Case Name: Willie Eugene CRAWFORD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dr. George J. BETO, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1970-07-31
Citations: 428 F.2d 1217
Docket Number: No. 28969
Parties: Willie Eugene CRAWFORD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dr. George J. BETO, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, MORGAN and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 428
Pages: 1217–1217

Head Matter:
Willie Eugene CRAWFORD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dr. George J. BETO, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 28969
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 31, 1970.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 9, 1970.
Eugene R. Lyerly, Kilgore & Kilgore, Dallas, Tex., for appellant.
Crawford C. Martin, Atty. Gen., of Texas, Howard Fender, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., Nola White, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Alfred Walker, Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert C. Flowers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for appellee.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, MORGAN and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal by a state prisoner from denial by the district court of his petition for habeas corpus. Following a full hearing, the district court made full and complete findings of fact and concluded that appellant had failed to establish any basis for a collateral attack on his judgment of conviction and sentence by the state court. These findings cannot be said to be clearly erroneous in light of the support for them found both at the district court trial and the state record.
The judgment is
Affirmed.
. Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this ease is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 804, Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 526, Part I.