Case Name: Thomas J. PATTERSON, #92810, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1973-11-09
Citations: 487 F.2d 341
Docket Number: No. 73-2788
Parties: Thomas J. PATTERSON, #92810, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 487
Pages: 341–341

Head Matter:
Thomas J. PATTERSON, #92810, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 73-2788
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 9, 1973.
Thomas A. Deas, Mobile, Ala., Court-Appointed, for petitioner-appellant.
Charles S. White-Spunner, U. S. Atty., Irwin W. Coleman, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Mobile, Ala., for respondent-appellee.
Before GEWIN, COLEMAN and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5th Gir. See Isbell Enterprises, Ine. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Patterson filed a habeas corpus petition in the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1970) seeking to have his previous conviction of escaping from federal custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751 (1970) set aside. As a basis for relief, appellant contended that his court-appointed counsel had refrained from requesting the court to have him examined for possible insanity at the time of his escape. Because of the alleged incompetence of counsel, appellant contended that he had been denied due process of law.
The district court conducted a hearing to ascertain the facts surrounding appellant's claims. Appellant and two witnesses testified that appellant had indeed requested counsel to seek a psychiatric examination. Court-appointed counsel denied ever receiving such a request. Crediting the counsel's testimony, the district court denied relief.
We affirm. Factual questions must be determined by the district court, and unless clearly erroneous are binding on the court of appeals. See United States v. Strother, 458 F.2d 424, 430 (5th Cir. 1972). Since this case falls within the well established rule,, we are bound to affirm the district court's determinations of the factual issues.
Affirmed.