U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1969

Alfred D. Arellanes v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided April 25, 1969 · Merrill, Browning, Taylor

408 F.2d 1392 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

F. Conger Fawcett (argued), of Graham & James, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant., John Milano (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Cecil F. Poole, U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Jimmy Neuschafer v. Harol Whitley Attorney General for the State of Nevada, Respondents (9th Cir. 1988)

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:

The validity of appellant’s conviction has been challenged before this court on three earlier occasions. The issues tendered to the district court in appellant’s last application under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 were encompassed in a prior petition on which a hearing was held and an order entered denying relief, which this court affirmed. Arellanes v. United States, 353 F.2d 270 (9th Cir. 1965), affirming 238 F.Supp. 546 (N.D.Cal. 1964). In these circumstances, appellant was entitled to a hearing on the present motion only upon a showing that the ends of justice would be served by a redetermi-nation of the issues. See Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 17, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963). Although the opinion of the district court dismissing the motion is couched largely in other terms, it left no room to doubt that it was the district court’s view that reliti-gation of the issues would not serve the ends of justice. That decision was within the district court’s discretion (see Sanders v. United States, supra, at 18, 83 S.Ct. 1068), and will not be disturbed here.

Affirmed.

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