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

United States v. Joseph Anthony Davis

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided December 26, 1972 · Chambers, Kilkenny, Per Curiam, Taylor

472 F.2d 596 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Marvin M. Karpatkin (argued), New York City, Daniel Kallen, Michael E. Somers, Santa Monica, Cal., Scott J. Tepper, Los Angeles Selective Service Lawyers’ Panel, Los Angeles, Cal., Som-ers & Kallen, Santa Mqnica, Cal., Melvin Wulf, ACLU, New York City, for defendant-appellant., John K. Cameron, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Eric A. Nobles, Paul Sweeney, Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Davis v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1974)
Henkel v. United States (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1973)
Clyde Turner v. United States (6th Cir. 1991)
United States v. Richard Emerson Bonnette, Jr. (4th Cir. 1986)
Raymond Pandelli v. United States (6th Cir. 1980)
United States v. Anthony Loschiavo (2d Cir. 1976)
United States v. Philip Travers (2d 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:

This is an appeal from the denial of appellant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The issue here presented is precisely the same as the one presented and decided adversely to appellant in United States v. Davis, 447 F.2d 1376 (CA9 1971), cert. denied 405 U.S. 933, 92 S.Ct. 939, 30 L.Ed.2d 809 (1972).

This circuit is firmly committed to the rule that where an issue has been decided on direct appeal from a conviction, it cannot be relitigated again on a § 2255 motion. The decision on the direct appeal is the law of the case. Odom v. United States, 455 F.2d 159, 160 (CA9 1972). Appellant argues that United States v. Fox, 454 F.2d 593 (CA9 1971) created new law by overruling United States v. Davis and that he should be permitted to fall within the perimeter of the new rule. Aside from the fact that Fox does not even suggest overruling Davis, Fox, 454 F.2d p. 594, 1 the new law, or change in law, rule is not applied in this circuit under circumstances such as here presented. Odom v. United States, supra.

Judgment affirmed.

. For that matter, an in banc proceeding would be required to overrule a previous panel decision.

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