TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Theodore James Weinreich v. United States

Theodore James WEINREICH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Weinreich v. United States, 414 F.2d 279 (9th Cir. 1969)
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
July 18, 1969
Docket
No. 23316
Judges
Barnes, Hamlin, Merrill, Per Curiam
Citations
414 F.2d 2791969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11442

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion made under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 .

Petitioner was convicted of bank robbery ( 18 U.S.C. § 2113 ). He appealed and his conviction was affirmed. Dear-inger v. United States, 344 F.2d 309 (9th Cir. 1955).

Thereafter, the trial court conducted a full evidentiary hearing on petitioner’s motion for new trial on newly discovered evidence. This was denied.

This petition alleged that he was held in “solitary confinement” prior to his trial, and was denied a motion for a continuance ten days before his trial. Neither of such grounds was urged on appeal. He also charged that he was inadequately represented by counsel at his trial, an issue raised on his appeal (but not at his trial) and decided adversely to him on appeal. 344 F.2d 309 at 313 .

The two grounds urged here for the first time are stated in general conclu-sionary terms. Petitioner fails to specify facts concerning the mode of his custody, or how it affected his relations with his counsel or how he or his counsel were affected in presenting his de *280 fense. His complaint as to a continuance was not properly raised at his trial, nor at all on his appeal, and he has waived it.

Thus the appellant has presented no factual matters that require a hearing; hence no hearing was required. The district court carefully examined the transcript of petitioner’s trial proceedings, and found no error.

We affirm the district court’s conclusion.

How later courts describe this case

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

1974: 21975: 11978: 119742026peak 1974 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Houser v. United States508 F.2d 509 (8th Cir. 1974)
  2. Olsen v. United States390 F. Supp. 1264 (D. Minnesota 1975)
  3. Frank Houser and Winnie Houser v. United States508 F.2d 509 (8th Cir. 1974)
  4. Parker v. Solem450 F. Supp. 1150 (D.S.D. 1978)

Most recent

  1. Parker v. Solem450 F. Supp. 1150 (D.S.D. 1978)
  2. Olsen v. United States390 F. Supp. 1264 (D. Minnesota 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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Dearinger v. United States, 344 F.2d 309 (9th Cir. 1965) 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