Alva Eugene Hemming, III v. United States
Alva Eugene HEMMING, III, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
Since appellant is without counsel and none has been appointed, the case cannot be orally heard, see Elchuk v. United States, 1962, 370 U.S. 722 , 82 S.Ct. 1574 , 8 L.Ed.2d 802 , and accordingly the case is properly placed on the summary calendar under Fifth Circuit Rule 18.
This is an appeal from the denial of a motion to vacate judgment and sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , after an evidentiary hearing. We deny the government’s motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellant has served his sentence, see Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 , 88 S.Ct. 1556 , 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968), and affirm the judgment.
The appellant’s sole contention presented to the district court was that his plea of guilty was involuntary. The district court denied relief in an extensive memorandum opinion which we find correct in point of law.
The appellant contends upon appeal that the district court erred in its findings of fact. He did not, however, include in the record upon appeal any part of the testimony taken at the § 2255 hearing. The transcript is absent because of the appellant’s failure to comply with the express provisions of Rule 10(a) F.R.A.P., which is the same as this Court’s former Rule 23(1). Therefore he cannot be heard, upon this appeal, to complain that the findings were erroneous. We note in passing that the record shows that when he pleaded guilty, the appellant represented to the court that his plea was voluntarily and understanding^ made.
The appellant further contends that the district court erred in sentencing him for the felony of concealing government property worth more than $100 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 , because the submachine gun which was the property involved was actually worth less than $100. Since this issue was not raised in the district court, it will not be considered upon appeal. Clark v. United States, 5 Cir. 1966, 367 F.2d 378 ; Weed v. United States, 5 Cir. 1966, 360 F.2d 568 .
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 13 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Victor Rivera Morales v. Celeste Benitez De Rexach, Esther Pedroza Gabriel v. Celeste Benitez
- United States v. James Ray Renton
- Willard Junior Chunn v. J. J. Clark, Warden
- Arthur N. Reed v. United States
- Luke Joseph Rener v. United States
- Linda Stout, by Her Father and Next Friend, Blevin Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Education, United States of America
Most recent
- United States v. James Ray Renton
- Victor Rivera Morales v. Celeste Benitez De Rexach, Esther Pedroza Gabriel v. Celeste Benitez
- Linda Stout, by Her Father and Next Friend, Blevin Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Education, United States of America
- Ralph L. McKlemurry v. United States
- Luke Joseph Rener v. United States
- Arthur N. Reed v. United States
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.