TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

William J. Olson v. United States

William J. OLSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Olson v. United States, 234 F.2d 956 (4th Cir. 1956)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 18, 1956
Docket
No. 7176
Judges
Parker, Soper, Moore
Citations
234 F.2d 9561956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3805

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to set aside and vacate a sentence. Appellant was charged with the interstate transportation of forged securities in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 . He was represented by counsel and, after waiving indictment, entered a plea of guilty to the charges against him as set forth in an information. He contends in the motion to vacate that the checks as to which forgery and transportation were charged were in an amount less than $5,000; but that amount is not required with respect to forged securities the transportation of which is made criminal by the second paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 , under which the charges were drawn. Caldwell v. United States, 8 Cir., 160 F.2d 371 . The counts of the information substantially charge the offense denounced by the statute; and the law is well settled that, where the sufficiency of the charge is not questioned on the trial, it will not be held insufficient on a motion to vacate the sentence unless it is so obviously defective that by no reasonable construction can it be said to charge the offense for which conviction has been had. Aaron v. United States, 4 Cir., 188 F.2d 446 ; Dickerson v. United States, 4 Cir., 175 F.2d 440 ; Pifer v. United States, 4 Cir., 158 F.2d 867 ; Lucas v. United States, 4 Cir., 158 F.2d 865 . There is no merit in the contention that the trial judge should not have received evidence of and considered appellant’s prior criminal record in passing sentence.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1963: 21964: 11965: 219632026peak 1963 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Gordon R. Thompson356 F.2d 216 (2d Cir. 1965)
  2. Ralph Argent v. United States325 F.2d 162 (5th Cir. 1963)
  3. United States v. Felix Francis Koneski323 F.2d 862 (4th Cir. 1963)
  4. United States v. Donald Lyle Hassel341 F.2d 427 (4th Cir. 1965)
  5. Rush v. United States225 F. Supp. 843 (E.D. La. 1964)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Gordon R. Thompson356 F.2d 216 (2d Cir. 1965)
  2. United States v. Donald Lyle Hassel341 F.2d 427 (4th Cir. 1965)
  3. Rush v. United States225 F. Supp. 843 (E.D. La. 1964)
  4. Ralph Argent v. United States325 F.2d 162 (5th Cir. 1963)
  5. United States v. Felix Francis Koneski323 F.2d 862 (4th Cir. 1963)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Pifer v. United States, 158 F.2d 867 (4th Cir. 1946) 24
Lucas v. United States, 158 F.2d 865 (4th Cir. 1946) 23
Aaron v. United States, 188 F.2d 446 (4th Cir. 1951) 13
Caldwell v. United States, 160 F.2d 371 (8th Cir. 1947) 8
Dickerson v. United States, 175 F.2d 440 (4th Cir. 1949) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list