U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 1962

Ruben Dario Sanchez v. J. C. Taylor, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Decided May 3, 1962 · Pickett, Lewis, Breitenstein

302 F.2d 725 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Barry D. Mock, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant., R. Stanley Ditus, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., and Benjamin E. Franklin, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Bernard R. Barkan v. The United States of America (10th Cir. 1965)
Raymond Coates v. William F. Smith and Harold G. Miller (7th Cir. 1984)
Scherl v. United States (District Court, S.D. New York 1976)
Broadway Arrington v. John T. Willingham Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas (10th Cir. 1966)
Frederick Marion Fox v. J. C. Taylor, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas (10th Cir. 1965)
William Alva Carte v. John C. Taylor, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas (10th Cir. 1965)
Clell Johnson v. J. C. Taylor, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas (10th Cir. 1965)
Gerald M. Crismond, Jr. v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania (3d Cir. 1964)
Cleveland Roy Williams v. United States of America, Donald L. Davis v. United States of America, Christy Zoumah v. United States (10th Cir. 1963)
Chester L. Oughton v. United States of America (John C. Taylor, Warden) (10th Cir. 1962)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Sanchez, a federal prisoner confined at Leavenworth, Kansas, under multiple, unexpired sentences imposed in the District of Puerto Rico for various narcotic offenses, petitioned in the District, of Kansas for habeas corpus and the writ was denied on the ground that the remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was ex-r elusive. We agree. The § 2255 remedy is exclusive unless it is inadequate or ineffective. The only showing is that a motion under § 2255 in the sentencing court was unsuccessful. That is not enough. Barrett v. United States, 10 Cir., 285 F.2d 758, 759; Williams v. United States, 10 Cir., 283 F.2d 59, 60. The denial of a motion made under § 2255 does not, of itself, establish that the remedy provided by that section is either ineffective or inadequate.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.