Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

338 F.2d 1004

Docket No. 7800.

Sullivan v. Taylor

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1964-12-08

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1965

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Sullivan v. United States · Mize v. Crouse

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1964-12-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Jack R. Lawrence, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.

Benjamin E. Franklin, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Newell A. George, U.S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.

Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PICKETT and SETH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

In this habeas corpus proceedings, the petitioner attacks his judgment of sentence contending that a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 is 'inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.' The same issues presented here were before the trial Court in a former 2255 proceedings, affirmed in this Court in Sullivan v. United States, 10 Cir., 315 F.2d 304. The remedy under Sec. 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective even though unsuccessful.

¶2

Affirmed.

/338/f2d/1004 · .json · Public domain