U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1959

Connie Wilkins v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided January 23, 1959 · Fahy, Washington, Bastian

262 F.2d 226 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Appellant filed a brief pro se, and his case was treated as submitted thereon., Mr. Edward C. O’Connell, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for ap-pellee.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Dansby v. United States (District Court, S.D. New York 1968)
Estes v. United States (District Court, W.D. Texas 1966)

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 a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging that the prosecution knowingly used perjured testimony, that appellant did not have effective assistance of counsel, and that the trial judge lost jurisdiction to proceed to judgment because of erroneous rulings. The District Court held that the files and records in the case conclusively showed that the defendant was entitled to no re *227 lief, and that certain of the claimed errors could only be raised by direct appeal. *

On the materials before us, we find no error affecting substantial rights. Cf. Wilkins v. United States, 1955, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 66, 228 F.2d 37.

Affirmed.

As to the alleged use of perjured testimony, the record showed, at most, inconsistencies in the testimony in question.

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