Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

422 F.2d 379

Docket No. 28114

Chambers v. United States

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Feb. 5, 1970.

Rehearing Denied and Rehearing En Banc Denied March 16,1970.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1970-02-05

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 1977

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 Murphy v. Houma Well Service · Huth v. Southern Pacific Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1970-02-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Summary Calendar.

¶2*380Paul Glen Chambers, pro se.

¶3Eldon B. Mahon, U.S. Atty., Andrew Barr, Asst. U.S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., for appellee.

¶4Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6This appeal is taken from an order of the District Court denying the motion of a federal convict to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. We affirm.1

¶7Chambers is serving a fifteen-year sentence for bank robbery, a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a). He was convicted on his plea of guilty, entered with the advice of counsel. In his § 2255 motion to vacate and .on appeal he alleges several grounds for relief, including that the sentencing court, the Northern District of Texas, was without jurisdiction because the offense was committed in the Eastern District of Texas; that the Government failed to show requisite evidence to constitute the offense; and that he “has been convicted in jeopardy” of the offense charged in the indictment. The District Court found from examining the record that Chambers had signed a Consent to Transfer Venue, pursuant to Rule 20, F.R.Crim.P. The court found from a transcript of the arraignment proceedings that Chambers affirmatively acknowledged the factual resume read by the United States Attorney which constituted the offense to which Chambers pled guilty. The court below further found that that was the first and only time Chambers had been charged with that offense.

¶8All of these findings are supported by the record and we cannot say that any of them are clearly erroneous. Fed.R. Civ.P., rule 52(a). Though sometimes difficult to fathom, we have considered Chambers’ other contentions and find them to be without merit.

¶9The judgment of the District Court is Affirmed.

/422/f2d/379 · .json · Public domain