Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

283 F.2d 49

Docket No. 6465.

Cito v. United States

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Oct. 6, 1960

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1960-10-06

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 1973

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

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

Relies on Cleaver v. United States · Adam v. United States · Skoog v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1960-10-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1John M. Deisch of Enos, Buchler & Deisch, Denver, Colo., for appellant.

¶2Charles M. Stoddard, Asst. U. S. Atty., Denver, Colo. (Donald G. Brotzman, U. S. Atty., Denver, Colo., on the brief), for appellee.

¶3Before HUXMAN, LEWIS and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Appellant filed a petition in the District Court for the District of Colorado for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis alleging that his conviction and subsequent sentence for conspiracy to burglarize and burglary of a United States post office were improper. His sole contention is that the evidence at trial did not show that the crime was perpetrated in that portion of the burglarized building dedicated to the functions of a federal post office. Relief was denied by trial court in the form sought and also as considered under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.

¶6The judgment is affirmed. Coram no-bis is neither a substitute for direct appeal nor for proper relief under § 2255. Adam v. United States, 10 Cir., 274 F.2d 880. Appellant’s conviction was considered and affirmed on direct appeal, Cito v. United States, 10 Cir., 238 F.2d 766, and the collateral issues determined in a companion case, Skoog v. United States, 10 Cir., 268 F.2d 218.

/283/f2d/49 · .json · Public domain