TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Anthony Joseph Cambiano v. United States

Anthony Joseph CAMBIANO, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Cambiano v. United States, 295 F.2d 13 (9th Cir. 1961)
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
September 16, 1961
Docket
No. 17408
Judges
Hamley, Jertberg, Murray, Per Curiam
Citations
295 F.2d 131961 U.S. App. LEXIS 3599

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Appellant is serving a sentence of twenty-five years imposed in January, 1957, as a result of his conviction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Central Division, under Title 18 U.S.C. § 2114 . Section 2114 provides that whoever assaults any person having lawful charge, control or custody of any mail matter, or of any money, or any other property of the United States, with the intent to rob, steal or purloin such mail matter, money or other property of the United States, or rob such person of mail matter, money or other property of the United States, shall be imprisoned for not more than ten years for the first offense. The statute further provides that in the course of such robbery, if the offender puts in jeopardy the life of the custodian of such mail matter or other property of the United States by the use of a dangerous weapon, he shall be imprisoned for twenty-five years.

Appellant, with two co-defendants, was convicted of the aggravated offense of putting in jeopardy the lives of his victims by the use of a dangerous weapon. Appellant filed a motion to vacate and correct the sentence under the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 , alleging the sentence to be illegal because of asserted error in the court’s instructions to the jury with regard to the aggravated offense of which he was convicted. The court below denied the motion and this appeal results.

*14 The denial of the motion by the district court must be affirmed.

In the first place, errors in instructions must be corrected on appeal and may not be reached in a proceeding under Section 2255. Banks v. U. S., 9 Cir., 1958, 258 F.2d 318 . Secondly, judgment of conviction was appealed and the instructions which were given in the case were approved by this court in Wagner v. U. S., 9 Cir., 1959, 264 F.2d 524 .

How later courts describe this case

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

1974: 21975: 11982: 119742026peak 1974 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Houser v. United States508 F.2d 509 (8th Cir. 1974)
  2. Price v. State647 P.2d 611 (Alaska Ct. App. 1982)
  3. Kelton v. United States394 F. Supp. 173 (W.D. Mo. 1975)
  4. Frank Houser and Winnie Houser v. United States508 F.2d 509 (8th Cir. 1974)

Most recent

  1. Price v. State647 P.2d 611 (Alaska Ct. App. 1982)
  2. Kelton v. United States394 F. Supp. 173 (W.D. Mo. 1975)
  3. Frank Houser and Winnie Houser v. United States508 F.2d 509 (8th Cir. 1974)
  4. Houser v. United States508 F.2d 509 (8th Cir. 1974)

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
Wagner v. United States, 264 F.2d 524 (9th Cir. 1959) 67
Banks v. United States, 258 F.2d 318 (9th Cir. 1958) 12

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