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, Appellee, v. Alex Wilson Carnley, Charles Edward Prater, and Billy Ray Owensby, Appellants
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit. - 289 F.2d 63
Argued March 29, 1961 Decided April 7, 1961
John H. Young, Roanoke, Va., for appellants.
Frank M. McCann, Asst. U. S. Atty., Roanoke, Va. (John Strickler, U. S. Atty., H. Clyde Pearson and Jackson L. Kiser, Asst. U. S. Attys., Roanoke, Va., on the brief), for appellee.
Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, SOPER, Circuit Judge, and LEWIS, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the denial of a writ of coram nobis by three young men who had pleaded guilty to three separate indictments. One indictment charged an assault with a deadly weapon committed upon a government employee at Natural Bridge Camp, Greenlee, Virginia, a government rehabilitation camp for boys. They were at the time inmates committed to that institution for earlier offenses. The second indictment was for the interstate transportation of a stolen automobile. The third charged theft of property exceeding $100.00 from a government reservation.
The appellants complain of certain statements made in open court after the entry of the pleas and before the imposition of sentence. Not only did their counsel interpose no protest against the statements or attempt to controvert them, or object to the proceedings at the time, but it has not been suggested either in the trial court then or later, when they petitioned for a writ of coram nobis, how their rights were in any manner impaired or adversely affected. Nor do they indicate even in this court what procedures the trial court should have followed in sentencing. Moreover, they do not suggest what facts, if the case were remanded, they would wish to bring to the court's attention that were not or could not have been adduced at the original sentencing hearing.
Affirmed.