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 v. Jerome A. Stevens, Appellant
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit. - 260 F.2d 549
Argued October 21, 1958 Decided October 31, 1958
Stanley H. Broder, Newark, N. J., for appellant.
Clyde A. Szuch, Asst. U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J. (Chester A. Weidenburner, U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J., on the brief), for appellee.
Before MARIS, McLAUGHLIN and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The defendant has appealed from the denial by the district court of his application by letter for a writ of error coram nobis which the court treated as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate or correct the sentence imposed on him on May 14, 1954, of twenty-five years imprisonment upon two counts of an indictment charging bank robberies under aggravated circumstances. In support of his request the defendant objected to a certain alleged instruction by the trial judge to the jury at his trial and to the failure of the indictment to charge that the lives of specified individuals were placed in jeopardy and that this was done by the defendant personally. The district court found no merit in the defendant's application and denied it. We have carefully considered the argument advanced by the defendant and his counsel but find ourselves in agreement with the district court that the grounds stated were properly presentable only on appeal from the judgment of conviction and are not of such fundamental jurisdictional character as to be available to support a writ of habeas corpus or a motion under section 2255.
The order of the district court will be affirmed.