TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Miller v. United States

Miller v. United States, 142 F.2d 249 (6th Cir. 1944)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 18, 1944
Docket
No. 9728
Judges
Allen, Allister, Martin
Citations
142 F.2d 2491944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3306

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Richard Ralph Miller, was convicted on November 13, 1942, by the verdict of a jury for violation of the Mann Act, U.S.C. Title 18, Section 398, 18 U.S.C.A. § 398 , and was duly sentenced on November 30, 1942, to serve a term of three years in prison. The certificate of the Clerk of the United States District Court shows that no notice of appeal was filed by appellant within five days after judgment, but that nine months later, on August 30, 1943, the Clerk received from appellant a motion for a new trial, or a re-trial, which was filed.

On October 27, 1943, the United States District Judge filed a memorandum, stating that the court had carefully considered appellant’s memorandum in support of the motion and found that the motion should be denied. On December 11, 1943, an order overruling the motion for a new trial was accordingly entered.

There is now before this court an informal appeal from the order of the district court. The appellant has briefed and argued his alleged right to an order setting aside the verdict of the jury and the judgment and sentence thereon. He takes the position that he is entitled to relief from further imprisonment, basing his argument primarily upon the new doctrine of McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 , 63 S.Ct. 608 , 87 L.Ed. 819 , which was promulgated after he had entered upon the service of his sentence in the Federal penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.

Without indicating our opinion upon the merits of appellant’s contention, we think that the only appropriate procedure which he can pursue for presentation of the issues raised by him is by petition for a writ of habeas corpus, addressed to a United States Judge or Justice of competent jurisdiction. His appeal from the judgment and sentence in the instant case is clearly not seasonable; and is, accordingly, denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

1944: 119442026peak 1944 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Thompson v. Harris152 P.2d 91 (Utah 1944) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. Thompson v. Harris152 P.2d 91 (Utah 1944) · Dissent

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
McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943) 1,543

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