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
Unpublished Dispositionjames Bond Outlaw, Jr., Petitioner-appellant, v. United States of America, Respondent-appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. - 859 F.2d 922
Oct. 4, 1988
Before WELLFORD and DAVID A. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and RICHARD B. McQUADE, District Judge.*
ORDER
This case has been referred to a panel of this court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the the briefs and record, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).
Petitioner, incarcerated at Federal Correctional Institution, Ashland, Kentucky, brought this action under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241 challenging the constitutionality of a 1967 military court conviction for premeditated murder, assault with intent to commit murder and dereliction of duty. The case was referred to a magistrate who recommended the petition be denied. The district court adopted this recommendation, over petitioner's objections, and this appeal followed. On appeal the parties have briefed the issues, petitioner proceeding pro se.
Our examination of the record leads us to conclude the issues advanced in the instant petition were fully and fairly dealt with by military tribunals having jurisdiction over the matter. Under Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, 142 (1953) (plurality opinion), further review is foreclosed.
Accordingly, the district court's judgment filed January 29, 1988, is affirmed. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.