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

Mark Lee OVERMAN, Appellant, v. F.T. WILKINSON, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing a petition for habeas corpus on the ground that petitioner's remedy was by motion under Sec. 2255, 28 U.S.C.A. in the court which had sentenced him.

The record discloses that this is appellant's second petition for habeas corpus. His first petition was denied with the suggestion that the petitioner's remedy was by a Section 2255 motion in the sentencing court, and petitioner filed such a motion. This motion denied, he did not appeal and seems now to be reapplying for habeas corpus relief on the ground that he is entitled to do so since he did not get the relief he asked from the sentencing court. The law is otherwise declared.

Hildebrandt v. Swope, 9 Cir., 229 F.2d 582.

The judgment dismissing his petition was right, and it is affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

OVERMAN v. WILKINSON
(Jul 22, 1958)