Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

232 F.2d 837

Docket No. 5281.

Atterson v. United States

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided April 16, 1956.

Writ of Certiorari Denied June 4, 1956.

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1956-04-16

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1956

3 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The Federal Statute creating the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 12 U.S.C.A. § 264 , authorizes that corporation to issue insurance certificates to qualified state banks. The Colorado Statutes specifically authorize state banks to contract for insurance with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Colorado Revised Statutes 1953, Chapter 14, Art. 9, § 6.” Atterson v. United States, 10 Cir., 232 F.2d 837 .”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Maupin v. United States

Applies 12 U.S.C. § 264 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Weir v. United States · 18 F. Supp. 793 - United States v. Doherty

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1956-04-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1See 76 S.Ct. 1038.

¶2Otto Andrew Atterson, pro se.

¶3Robert Swanson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Denver, Colo. (Donald E. Kelley, U. S. Atty., Denver, Colo., on the brief), for appellee.

¶4Before BRATTON, Chief Judge, and HUXMAN and PICKETT, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6Otto Andrew Atterson, with others, was indicted and convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on the charge of robbing, and conspiring to rob, the Metropolitan State Bank of Derby, Colorado, a bank insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. This is an appeal from an order denying a motion filed under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, to set aside the judgment and sentence entered on the conviction. The motion alleged that the judgment and sentence is void because the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation had failed to comply with the laws of the State of Colorado relating to foreign corporations and was unlawfully doing business in that state, therefore the contract of insurance with the bank was void and the bank was uninsured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and no federal offense had been committed. This contention is without merit. The Federal Statute creating the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 12 U.S.C.A. § 264, authorizes that corporation to issue insurance certificates to qualified state banks. The Colorado Statutes specifically authorize state banks to con*838tract for insurance with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Colorado Revised Statutes 1953, Chapter 14 Art. 9, § 6.

¶7As to the Federal criminal jurisdiction for offenses committed against member banks, see Weir v. United States, 7 Cir., 92 F.2d 634, 114 A.L.R. 481; United States v. Doherty, D.C.Neb., 18 F.Supp. 793; Annotation, 14 A.L.R. 489.

¶8Affirmed.

/232/f2d/837 · .json · Public domain