Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

295 F.2d 430

Docket No. 6725.

McGehee v. United States

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Sept. 2, 1961.

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1961-09-02

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1962

3 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Young v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1961-09-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1No appearance for appellant.

¶2Harry G. Fender, Asst. U. S. Atty., Muskogee, Okl. (Edwin Langley, U. S. Atty., Muskogee, Okl., on the brief), for appellee.

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

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This is a proceeding under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 in which appellant sought to have sentences imposed after conviction upon informations for offenses arising under the Bank Robbery Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113, set aside as denying him due process under the Fifth Amendment. Relief *431was denied by the trial court. The sole contention made is that the provisions of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113 constitute but a single offense and that since Sec. 2113(e) carries the potential of a death sentence all accusations under the Act must be initiated by indictment. Rule 7(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S. C.A.

¶6Appellant was specifically charged under Sec. 2113(a), (b), and (d). He waived indictment in open court, pleaded guilty to the charges relating to Sec. 2113 (a) and (b) and the charge under Sec. 2113(d) was dismissed.

¶7In Young v. United States, 10 Cir., 1961, 294 F.2d 517, we held that Sec. 2113 was an aggregation of separate offenses, each subject to prosecution by information unless containing the elements set forth in Sec. 2113(e). Appellant was not charged under (e) and was not denied due process.

¶8Affirmed.

/295/f2d/430 · .json · Public domain