TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Chester Banks v. United States

Chester BANKS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Banks v. United States, 258 F.2d 318 (9th Cir. 1958)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 10, 1958
Docket
No. 14-10080
Judges
Denman, Bone, Orr
Citations
258 F.2d 318

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Upon remand, the lower court entered an order again denying appellant’s motion (under Section 2255 of Title 28 U.S.C.A.) to vacate the judgment and sentence (in his 1954 conviction) after reconsideration as directed in the opinion of this Court in Banks v. United States of America, 249 F.2d 672 . Appellant’s *319 appeal from this order presents four contentions. (1) He was denied due process of law because the court’s instruction on entrapment was insufficient in law and fact, (2) he was denied a fair trial because the judge failed to instruct the jury that if it found that Banks had acted as a “purchasing agent,” he could not be convicted under the indictment as a “seller,” (3) the court erred when it failed to pass on the merits of appellant’s allegation that he had been entrapped, and (4) the court erred when it denied appellant’s motion for the reporter’s transcript in forma pauperis.

Appellant’s counsel agrees that no appeal was taken from the 1954 judgment and sentence here involved, and that appellant took no exceptions to the above mentioned instructions given the jury. None of the first three contentions above noted involves a violation of the constitutional rights of appellant. They present issues that could have been and should have been raised by a timely appeal from the sentence if appellant desired to raise them. Section 2255, supra, does not give him the right to try over again a case in which he was adjudged guilty. See Hastings v. United States of America, 9 Cir., 184 F.2d 939 . Under the circumstances of this case, the lower court properly denied appellant’s motion for a reporter’s transcript.

The order here appealed from is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1961: 21962: 11964: 31965: 11969: 21971: 11972: 11973: 119612026peak 1964 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. James C. Simmons v. United States302 F.2d 71 (3d Cir. 1962)
  2. Mathew L. Evans v. United States408 F.2d 369 (7th Cir. 1969)
  3. Johnston v. National Broadcasting Company, Inc.356 F. Supp. 904 (E.D.N.Y. 1973)
  4. Audilio Carrillo v. United States332 F.2d 202 (10th Cir. 1964)
  5. Robert Theodore Weaver v. United States418 F.2d 475 (8th Cir. 1969)
  6. William Banks v. United States287 F.2d 374 (7th Cir. 1961)

Most recent

  1. Johnston v. National Broadcasting Company, Inc.356 F. Supp. 904 (E.D.N.Y. 1973)
  2. United States v. Francisco Martinez Liantaud466 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir. 1972)
  3. LeDent v. Wolff334 F. Supp. 64 (D. Neb. 1971)
  4. Robert Theodore Weaver v. United States418 F.2d 475 (8th Cir. 1969)
  5. Mathew L. Evans v. United States408 F.2d 369 (7th Cir. 1969)
  6. Franano v. United States243 F. Supp. 709 (W.D. Mo. 1965)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Hastings v. United States, 184 F.2d 939 (9th Cir. 1950) 14
Banks v. United States, 249 F.2d 672 (9th Cir. 1957) 9

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