Sam Dipiazza v. United States
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision.
- Bible v. United States (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2025)
- Kaiser v. United States (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2025)
- Hawkins v. United States (District Court, W.D. Tennessee 2024)
- May-Shaw v. United States (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2024)
- Autrey v. United States (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2024)
- Morton v. United States (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2024)
- Morton v. United States (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2024)
- Dority v. United States (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2024)
- Williams v. United States (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2024)
- Morton v. United States (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2024)
- McBride v. United States (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2024)
- Miller v. United States (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2024)
- Reed v. United States (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2024)
- Mayfield v. United States (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2024)
- Clark v. United States (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2024)
- Wilson v. United States (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2024)
- Humphrey v. United States (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2024)
- Castro v. United States (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2022)
- Larry Harris v. United States (6th Cir. 1993)
- Jimmy Doyle Hindman v. United States (6th Cir. 1985)
- United States v. Paul Duhart, Paul Duhart v. United States (6th Cir. 1975)
- Caudill v. Cowan (District Court, E.D. Kentucky 1973)
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
Appellant was convicted in a jury trial in the Southern District of Ohio of seven counts of. using interstate facilities to promote an illegal gambling enterprise and one count of conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952, and 371. The conviction was affirmed by this court. 415 F.2d 99 (1969), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 949, 91 S.Ct. 1606, 29 L.Ed.2d 119 re *720 hearing denied, 403 U.S. 924, 91 S.Ct. 2221, 29 L.Ed.2d 702 (1971).
Appellant then filed a motion to vacate sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, on the grounds that the District Judge’s charge to the jury was incorrect. He appeals from the denial of this motion.
It is well settled in this circuit that a motion to vacate is not a proper substitute for appeal. Petro v. United States, 368 F.2d 807 (6th Cir. 1968); Hill v. United States, 223 F.2d 699, 701 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 867, 76 S.Ct. 113, 100 L.Ed. 768 (1955). Furthermore, jury instructions are not subject to attack under § 2255. Hollbrook v. United States, 441 F.2d 371 (6th Cir. 1971).
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.