U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1972

Gary Julius Paige v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided February 7, 1972 · No. 71-2255 · Merrill, Koelsch, Hufstedler

456 F.2d 1278; 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11451 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Gary Julius Paige, in pro. per., Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., Eric A. Nokles, Chief, Crim. Div., Brian J. O’Neill, Ass’t Chief, Crim. Div., Los An-geles, Cal., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Beamon v. State (Wis. 1980)
United States v. Grasso (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1979)
Gary Julius Paige v. United States (9th Cir. 1974)

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:

Appealing from denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, appellant assigns as error failure of the District Court to give consideration to various errors he asserts were committed in the course of his trial for bank robbery. One of these alleged errors was raised by appellant on direct appeal from judgment of conviction and was rejected by this court. United States v. Paige (9th Cir. 1971). The others relate to matters of evidence, the use of memoranda by a witness and remarks made by the government attorney. All could have been asserted on direct appeal but were not. None is of such dimensions as to present a question of due process. A sentence is not subject to collateral attack on the basis of such alleged error. Dodd v. United States, 321 F.2d 240 (9th Cir. 1963).

Judgment affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.