472 F.2d 596 - United States v. Davis — 472 F.2d 596

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1991

10 federal appellate ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Marvin M. Karpatkin (argued), New York City, Daniel Kallen, Michael E. Somers, Santa Monica, Cal., Scott J. Tepper, Los Angeles Selective Service Lawyers’ Panel, Los Angeles, Cal., Som-ers & Kallen, Santa Mqnica, Cal., Melvin Wulf, ACLU, New York City, for defendant-appellant.

¶2John K. Cameron, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Eric A. Nobles, Paul Sweeney, Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

¶3Before CHAMBERS and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges, and TAYLOR,* District Judge.

¶5PER CURIAM:

¶6This is an appeal from the denial of appellant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The issue here presented is precisely the same as the one presented and decided adversely to appellant in United States v. Davis, 447 F.2d 1376 (CA9 1971), cert. denied 405 U.S. 933, 92 S.Ct. 939, 30 L.Ed.2d 809 (1972).

¶7This circuit is firmly committed to the rule that where an issue has been decided on direct appeal from a conviction, it cannot be relitigated again on a § 2255 motion. The decision on the direct appeal is the law of the case. Odom v. United States, 455 F.2d 159, 160 (CA9 1972). Appellant argues that United States v. Fox, 454 F.2d 593 (CA9 1971) created new law by overruling United States v. Davis and that he should be permitted to fall within the perimeter of the new rule. Aside from the fact that Fox does not even suggest overruling Davis, Fox, 454 F.2d p. 594,1 the new law, or change in law, rule is not applied in this circuit under circumstances such as here presented. Odom v. United States, supra.

¶8Judgment affirmed.