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
George v. Arlen, Appellant, v. Charles R. Hagan, Warden, United States Penitentiary,lewisburg, Pennsylvania
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit. - 268 F.2d 77
Submitted May 26, 1959.Decided June 15, 1959
George V. Arlen pro se.
W. Wilson White, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harold H. Greene, Lucille A. Joy, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Daniel H. Jenkins, U.S. Atty., Scranton, Pa., for appellee.
Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and KALODNER and STALEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner-appellant is in prison by reason of a federal sentence. See United States v. Arlen, 2 Cir., 1958, 252 F.2d 491. He asserts that he was forced to trial in the United States District Court in the Western District of New York without the aid and advice of counsel and therefore he was denied the right to effective assistance by counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. This assertion was passed on in United States v. Arlen, supra. It is well established that any collateral attack upon a judgment of conviction under these circumstances must be made by motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, rather than by way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. United States v. Hayman, 1952, 342 U.S. 205, 72 S.Ct. 263, 96 L.Ed. 232. See also United States ex rel. Josey v. Humphrey, 3 Cir., 1954, 210 F.2d 826. Since the petitioner-appellant has not made such an application to the court which imposed the sentence the relief which he seeks cannot be granted him. Consequently the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.