From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hall v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Oct 18, 1957
248 F.2d 942 (4th Cir. 1957)

Opinion

No. 7471.

Argued October 7, 1957.

Decided October 18, 1957.

Roland Hall, pro se, on brief.

A. Andrew Giangreco, Asst. U.S. Atty., Arlington, Va. (L.S. Parsons, Jr., U.S. Atty., Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellee.

Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and HAYNSWORTH, Circuit Judges.


This is an appeal from an order dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant was convicted of crime in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Subsequently he made a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate the sentence. This motion was denied and the denial was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Hall v. United States, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 341, 235 F.2d 838. By the petition for habeas corpus he seeks to raise again the same questions decided against him on the motion. The petition was properly dismissed since there was nothing to indicate that the remedy by motion in the sentencing court under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 was "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention". Rice v. Clemmer, 4 Cir., 242 F.2d 870; Gaylord v. Clemmer, 4 Cir., 242 F.2d 872; Bozell v. Welch, 4 Cir., 203 F.2d 711; Myers v. Welch, 4 Cir., 179 F.2d 707, 708; Myers v. United States, 86 U.S. App.D.C. 320, 181 F.2d 802.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Hall v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Oct 18, 1957
248 F.2d 942 (4th Cir. 1957)
Case details for

Hall v. United States

Case Details

Full title:Roland HALL, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Oct 18, 1957

Citations

248 F.2d 942 (4th Cir. 1957)

Citing Cases

Slaughter v. Fleming

The petition for habeas corpus was properly denied since it does not appear that the remedy by motion in the…

Davis v. United States

The Fourth Circuit has consistently followed the reasoning of these two cases. See, for example: Morris v.…