Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

507 F.2d 243

Docket No. 74-3513

Booth v. United States

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Jan. 24, 1975.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1975-01-24

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1975

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Montgomery v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1975-01-24

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Summary Calendar.*

¶2*244Gary Mark Booth, pro se.

¶3Frank McCown, U. S. Atty., William F. Sanderson, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., for respondent-appellee.

¶4Before GEWIN, GODBOLD and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

¶6PER CURIAM:

¶7The appellant Booth appeals from an order of the United States District Court denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

¶8The appellant was convicted of conspiracy to transport stolen goods, 18 U.S.C. § 371, and interstate transportation of stolen goods, 18 U.S.C. § 2314. At his trial he was represented by retained counsel. An appeal was perfected, oral argument was heard and while the matter was under submission in this court the appellant dismissed his retained counsel and filed a pro se motion to withdraw his appeal. The panel of this court which had the matter under consideration granted the motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, appellant’s counsel moved for a rehearing on the order granting permission to withdraw the appeal, which was denied. Subsequently, appellant filed a motion to vacate withdrawal of appeal and to reinstate the appeal. That motion was also denied.

¶9 Appellant then filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the district court contending that the dismissal of his appeal was not voluntary. After reviewing the record, the district court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing. While we agree that bona fide factual issues in § 2255 cases must be resolved on the basis of an evidentiary hearing, Montgomery v. United States, 469 F.2d 148 (5th Cir. 1972), we hold that in view of all of the circumstances of this case the petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion and that the order of dismissal by the district court should be affirmed.

¶10Judgment affirmed.

/507/f2d/243 · .json · Public domain