United States v. Defillo

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued March 11, 1960.

Decided March 17, 1960.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1960-03-17

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1975

5 federal appellate ·

3 counsel of record

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

Relies on Skibs v. Otis McAlLister & Co. · United States v. De Fillo · Car and General Insurance Corp., Ltd. v. Jack Goldstein, and Myra Goldstein, an Infant, by Her Guardian Ad Litem, Frances Goldstein

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1960-03-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Santiago Defillo appeals from an order denying his second motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his conviction and sentence for violating the federal narcotics laws, affirmed 2 Cir., 257 F.2d 835, certiorari denied Defillo v. United States, 359 U.S. 915, 79 S.Ct. 591, 3 L.Ed. 2d 577. Judge Kaufman’s earlier opinion denying appellant’s first motion is reported in D.C.S.D.N.Y., 166 F.Supp. 627.

¶2Santiago Defillo, pro se.

¶3David Klingsberg, Asst. U. S. Atty., S.D.N.Y., New York City (S. Hazard Gillespie, Jr., U. S. Atty., and Louis T. Gallo, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, on the brief), for appellee.

¶4Before CLARK, WATERMAN, and LEWIS,… Circuit Judges.

¶6PER CURIAM.

¶7Affirmed on the opinion of District Judge Kaufman, June 30, 1959, 182 F. Supp. 782.

Download

Copy

Embed on your site

Hover to preview · click to copy the code

Search Wikipedia →

Court

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Panel

Charles Edward Clark
Chief Judge
LE
LEWIS
Sterry Robinson Waterman
Circuit Judge
PER CURIAM.
By the court
Read opinion →

Counsel

Santiago Defillo appeals from an order denying his second motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his conviction and sentence for violating the federal narcotics laws, affirmed 2 Cir., 257 F.2d 835, certiorari denied Defillo v. United States, 359 U.S. 915, 79 S.Ct. 591, 3 L.Ed. 2d 577. Judge Kaufman’s earlier opinion denying appellant’s first motion is reported in D.C.S.D.N.Y., 166 F.Supp. 627.

Santiago Defillo, pro se.

David Klingsberg, Asst. U. S. Atty., S.D.N.Y., New York City (S. Hazard Gillespie, Jr., U. S. Atty., and Louis T. Gallo, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, on the brief), for appellee.

In the law dictionary

Defined terms used in this case

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255