Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive
Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Nick Di Martini, Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. - 219 F.2d 807
Motion Submitted Feb. 2, 1955.Decided Feb. 10, 1955
Nicholas Martini, pro se.
Myles J. Ambrose, Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City, in opposition.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and L. HAND and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
We are asked to vacate our dismissal-- entered October 4, 1954, on motion of the United States for lack of prosecution-- of defendant's appeal from denial of relief in the nature of coram nobis from a conviction in the court below entered in 1932 and duly served.
Defendant is presently confined in a New York State prison under state sentence under its multiple offender law, and seeks this relief as a basis for amelioration of his state sentence. Judge Dimock first decided that defendant was entitled to a full hearing, United States v. Di Martini, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 118 F.Supp. 601, and then, after it had been accorded, concluded that defendant had not proved his contention of being unlawfully deprived of counsel on the occasion of his conviction below. D.C.S.D.N.Y., 120 F.Supp. 907.
While defendant's assertions of lack of notice of the government's motion to dismiss may not appear overconvincing, we should not stop with this if we could discover merit in his appeal; we are accustomed to make various concessions of time to prisoners in confinement. But we can see no merit in the appeal. Whether fully entitled or not, defendant has had an extensive hearing, including full testimony, before an experienced and patient trial judge who has decided against him on factual issues; and no question of law remains. And specifically on defendant's request for permission to proceed in forma pauperis, he has shown no statutory grounds for its grant.
Accordingly defendant's motion must be denied in full.