United States v. John Morgan Williamson

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Morgan WILLIAMSON, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Williamson, 469 F.2d 88 (5th Cir. 1972)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided: November 6, 1972
Docket: No. 72-2239
Judges: Bell, Dyer, Clark
Citations: 469 F.2d 881972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6855

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Williamson was found guilty of unlawful escape from the Federal Correctional Institution, Seagoville, Texas, 1

and sentenced to thirteen months’ confinement, the sentence to run consecutively to the sentence he was serving under a previous conviction for a violation of the Dyer Act.

He claims that he has been subjected to double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment because he had already administratively lost “good time” deductions from the term of the earlier sentence. Williamson further complains that the district court erred in refusing to consider his § 2255 motion asserting that the charge of escape arose out of a void judgment entered in the district court of New Mexico and that the judgment of the district court for the Western District of Louisiana revoking his probation was also void. We find Williamson’s contentions without merit and affirm.

In Keaveny v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 405 F.2d 821 , where a similar double jeopardy issue was raised, we summarily disposed of it saying: “This contention is without merit. Administrative discipline of an escapee does not prohibit criminal prosecution for the escape.”

The court below properly refused to consider Williamson’s § 2255 motion. The statute clearly provides that a prisoner who desires to collaterally attack his sentence “may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.” The collateral attack must be filed in the convicting court. Light v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 430 F.2d 932 ; Walker v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 429 F.2d 1301 .

Affirmed.

. 18 U.S.C.A. § 751 (a).

. 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2311-2313 .

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 15 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

United States v. Bobby Joe Duke527 F.2d 386 (5th Cir. 1976)
State v. Kjeldahl278 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. 1979)
Commonwealth v. Sneed322 N.E.2d 435 (Mass. App. Ct. 1975)
United States v. Larry Edward Stead528 F.2d 257 (8th Cir. 1976)
Rogers v. State44 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001)
State v. McKenzie542 N.W.2d 616 (Minn. 1996)

Most recent

United States v. DanielNo. 06-60822 (5th Cir. Mar. 15, 2007)
Rogers v. State44 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001)
Donald Rogers v. StateNo. 10-99-00110-CR (Tex. App.—Waco Apr. 11, 2001)
State v. McKenzie542 N.W.2d 616 (Minn. 1996)
Hernandez v. State904 S.W.2d 808 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995)
United States v. Coder39 M.J. 1006 (1994)

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 3

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Keaveny v. United States, 405 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1969)	18
	Walker v. United States, 429 F.2d 1301 (5th Cir. 1970)	12
	Light v. United States, 430 F.2d 932 (5th Cir. 1970)	5

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list