Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

Frank Sepul v. da CASADOS, Appellant,

PER CURIAM:

The appellant was convicted of violating the marihuana laws of the United States. The validity of his sentence was previously considered by the Court in Casados v. United States, 5 Cir., 300 F.2d 845, cert. den. 373 U.S. 938, 83 S.Ct. 1543, 10 L.Ed.2d 693. The present challenge to the validity of the conviction and sentence is presented by an application which in form was for mandamus and which the district court properly treated as a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. Two questions, presented to the district court, are raised here. The first point raised is that at the trial counsel conferred with the court at the bench without the presence of the court reporter taking down and transcribing the proceedings at the bench in violation of 28 U.S.C.A. § 753(b). Whether or not side-bar colloquy needs to be reported is a question which we do not decide. It is not a question that can be raised in a Section 2255 proceeding. The other contention is that perjured testimony was knowingly used. The district court had a hearing and the persons relied upon by the appellant to sustain his position were examined. The court decided that the proof of the charge had not been made. The determination was correct.

The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

CASADOS v. UNITED STATES
(Feb 25, 1966)