Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1960

Robert L. Ramsour v. United States

Robert L. Ramsour v. United States
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided June 9, 1960 · Phillips, Tenth, Fahy, Washington
280 F.2d 57; 108 U.S. App. D.C. 49; 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4336 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Appellant filed a brief, pro se, and his case was treated as submitted thereon., Mr. Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, submitted on the brief for appellee.

Robert L. Ramsour v. United States

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

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.

Appellant was convicted on eleven counts of an indictment under the narcotics laws. 21 U.S.C. § 174 (1958); 26 U.S.C. §§ 4704(a), 4705(a) (1958). He filed a timely application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, which the District Court denied. Later, he moved to vacate his sentence, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1958). The motion was denied, and this appeal followed.

Whether this case be considered as a belated direct appeal from the judgment of conviction, cf. Blunt v. United States, 1957, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 266, 244 F.2d 355, 1 or simply as an appeal from the *58 order denying the motion under Section 2255, we must conclude that appellant is not entitled to relief. We have reviewed the entire record, and perceive no prejudicial error as to any of the counts of which appellant was found guilty, or in the denial of the motion under Section 2255.

Affirmed.

1

. We express no opinion as to whether on the facts here appellant is entitled to have his ease so considered.

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