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
Robert v. Dotson, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit. - 314 F.2d 50
January 31, 1963
Charles Edward Palmer, Denver, Colo. (Dawson, Nagel, Sherman & Howard, Denver, Colo., with him on the brief), for appellant.
Benjamin E. Franklin, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., with him on the brief), for appellee.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PICKETT and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner is presently confined in the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. An application for a writ of habeas corpus was considered by the District Court for the District of Kansas and petitioner was denied, without a hearing, permission to proceed in forma pauperis by order indicating the petition contained only claims earlier considered and rejected by this court, Dotson v. United States, 10 Cir., 287 F.2d 868. We allowed petitioner to proceed in this court in forma pauperis in order to review the District Court's order.
Our earlier review of petitioner's claims, some 46 of them, rejected all such claims properly before the court. Petitioner now asserts that our decision does not bar him from further presenting claims which were not then properly before the court. This argument has no present relevancy to the instant application for a writ of habeas corpus. The claims now made relative to a denial of constitutional rights were specifically rejected in our prior decision and the remaining allegations that attack the admission of evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence are not properly reached by habeas corpus.
Affirmed.