Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

309 F.2d 749

Docket No. 7057.

Young v. United States

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Oct. 4, 1962.

Certiorari Denied Jan. 14, 1963.

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1962-10-04

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 1970

7 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 1962-10-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1See 83 S.Ct. 546.

¶2David C. Johnston, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.

¶3Benjamin E. Franklin, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., was with him on the brief), for appellee.

¶4Before LEWIS, BREITENSTEIN and SETH, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6Appellant, upon appeal from an order of the District Court for the District of Kansas denying relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, attacks the validity of 18 U.S. C.A. § 2113(a) and the information under which he was charged asserting the charge to be “non-existent and impossible” as a federal offense. We have earlier considered the substance of appellant’s claims in this regard, Young v. United States, 10 Cir., 294 F.2d 517, and found the contentions to be without merit. His present and additional argument that the information must allege an intent to commit a felony “in such bank” as distinguished from “from such bank” is similarly unsound.

¶7The sentencing court has considered appellant’s petition upon the merits, as has this Court, and it is therefore unnecessary to consider whether the sentencing court was required1 to entertain the petition.

¶8Affirmed.

/309/f2d/749 · .json · Public domain