Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

197 F.2d 333

Docket No. 13981.

Dockery v. Hiatt

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided June 18, 1952.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1952-06-18

2 counsel of record

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on American Seating Co. v. Zell · Viereck v. United States · Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1952-06-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 1973

6 federal appellate ·

30195219601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1See also, 4 Gir., 188 F.2d 451.

¶2*334Booker T. Dockery, in pro. per.

¶3J. Ellis Mundy, U. S. Atty., Harvey H. Pisinger, Asst. U. S. Atty., H. A. Stephens, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for ap-pellee.

¶4Before HOLMES, BORAH and RIVES, Circuit Judges.

¶5HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

¶6Upon his plea of nolo contendere to an indictment charging him with violation of Sections 2803, 2913, and 3253, of Title 26, United States Code, appellant was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment on the first count, and eighteen months imprisonment on the third count, the latter “to begin on expiration of sentence on the first count.” Upon denial of his motion to vacate sentence, said motion having been filed with the sentencing court in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 2255, appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the court below, in which he alleged that he had completed eighteen months imprisonment, and asked that he be released from custody on the ground that, because of the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 709a, see 18 U.S. C. § 3568, the court was without jurisdiction to impose a consecutive sentence on a separate count of the same indictment. This appeal is from the order denying the petition.

¶7We think that appellant’s contention is without merit. Former Section 709a of Title 18, U.S.Code, on which was .based the present statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3568, did not deprive the court of its power to impose consecutive sentences. Eyler v. Aderhold, 5 Cir., 73 F.2d 372; Ellerbrake v. U. S., 7 Cir., 134 F.2d 683, certiorari denied 319 U. S. 775, 63 S.Ct. 1435, 87 L.Ed. 1722, rehearing denied 320 U.S.. 810, 64 S.Ct. 30, 88 L.Ed. 490; Terrell v. Biddle, 8 Cir., 139 F.2d 32, certiorari denied Terrell v. Pescor, 321 U.S. 794. 64 S.Ct. 785. 88 L.Ed. 1083. rehearings denied 322 U.S. 767, 64 S.Ct. 941, 88 L.Ed. 1593, 769, 64 S.Ct. 1053, 88 L.Ed. 1594. The order appealed from is affirmed.

¶8Affirmed.

/197/f2d/333 · .json · Public domain