*1 Pennsylvania properties.14 How- be remanded to the Unit- to the ruling upon ever, Bank’s motion ed States District Court for the Eastern filing Pennsylvania appeals of District of revision was aborted 26, Bank, ap- 8, and, its June 1964 and June contended orders of as holdings peal 8 and of 1964 to conform with the here- relates to the orders June 26, no doubt in. wherefrom there can be action in the Bank’s foreclosure
that Pennsylvania enjoined by order 8, 1964 Caro-
of June and that the South enjoined
lina foreclosure was amending 26, Hence order of 1964. June filing of
the fact remains with the that 26, fore-
the order June 1964 both proceedings enjoined by the were closure SCOTT, Petitioner-Appellant, Bert L. and, District Court as submitted injunctions Bank, is that this from the brought.15 appeal has been As between Respondent-Appellee. application of above the law discussed No. 16014. proceedings in the to the foreclosure Pennsylvania the action State Court and Sixth Circuit. in removed to the federal court South Aug. 13, 1965. Carolina see no we difference. injunctions in the
The contained 8, 26, of June in so far
orders they affect the ac Bank’s foreclosure improvidently
tions entered. they extent
that vacated should be. permitted pursue
the Bank should courts, exi its actions both req
gencies satisfying its claims
uire.16 Hearing July Record that time reference to the Penn- sylvania amend properties. of North simply Carolina Bank And I wanted 26, 1964, pages dated June 38-39. my position order there to be doubt about Honor, “Me. DeLone : I regard.” Your won- in that might just thing, if I not to der argue one appeal 15. The Bank’s notice of was from but no con- so there be position would of June orders fusion the record about the merely brought order June mortgage my client with reference to the argu- additional defendants. The Bank’s Pennsylvania properties. only to, ment is directed and this up point “It is true to this deals, orders June 8 and 26. raised, press I not here have today do point suggested about the raised 16. It the Gov- urge Carolina South foreclosure. We ernment and the Receivers South Carolina foreclosure Bank’s foreclosure action is go Pennsylvania should be allowed to forward restraint State Court pleased only we can have that mortgagor, Laundry, initially would, which we understood we named as defendant in that suit and the joined make no about issue at this time United States lias not been aas Pennsylvania Now, junior do foreclosure. lienor as in the South Carolina however, not, position event want to be—in the foreclosure. Such a is untenable we do Brosnan, not achieve the satisfaction under United States v. claim, of our then I would to make application (1960). further to Your Honor at *2 thirty totaling sentences vacate two
years imprisonment. The motions hearing by the were denied without District who had United States administered the sentences. alleges pleas of that his
Petitioner for two indictments bank the robbery promise of a were induced a years than for sentence of ten more prom- offenses. He claims the three such by Mississippi sheriff— ise was made presence now the deceased —in acquiescence federal of several the officers. Although original pleading inwas his terms, fairly general answers government, concerning his time, specific now referred to are language
place, people present. Cf. (C. F.2d 646 Olive v. United 6,A. government turn, af-
In has filed from officers who fidavits the federal case which were concerned with the deny alleged by promise squarely appellant. noticing matter for hear- Without
ing taking testimony, any or United Judge denied motions. States District that he must do so us government taken affidavits in- to account. provides part fol-
Section lows: custody prisoner under sen- “A DeMichelis, Cincinnati, Clement J. by Act tence of a court established (McCaslin, McCaslin, Ohio Imbus & Cin- claiming right Congress cinnati, Ohio, brief), appellant. on the for ground upon the released McTighe, Jr., A. William Asst. U. S. imposed in violation was sentence Tenn., Miller, Memphis, Herbert J. or of the Constitution laws Atty. Gen., Div., Dept, Crim. States, or that the court was United (Thomas Robinson, of Justice L. impose jurisdiction such Atty., Memphis, Tenn., brief), or sentence appellee. maximum authorized excess of the by law, is otherwise or Judge, WEICK, Before Chief attack, may court move the collateral EDWARDS, Circuit O’SULLIVAN imposed the to va- sentence which
Judges. cate, correct aside or sen- tence. PER CURIAM. such relief “A motion for concerns motions filed
appellant
under
made at
time.
U.S.C. §
supra
“Unless the
records
the case conclusive-
ly
show that the
suggesting
volun
factors
relief,
to no
the court shall cause no-
pleas,
instant
tariness
cited
upon
tice thereof
to be served
government
attorney,
grant
highly
Judge,
persuasive. And it
prompt hearing thereon, determine
*3
hearing on remand
well be that the
findings
the issues
make
of fact
produce
will
no more facts than
al
respect
and conclusions of law with
Judge
way
”
ready
by
**
*
before the District
thereto.
28
U.S.C.
of affidavit. But he will
heard wit
§
testify
petitioner
nesses
clear,
course,
plea
It is
that a
produce
had
chance
substantiation
to
by promise
induced
of lenient
story
any.
for his
if he has
involuntary plea
treatment
is an
cannot,
case,
We
read the collo-
this
States,
hence void. Shelton v. United
356
quy
sentencing
providing
at
a definite
U.S.
78 S.Ct.
petitioner’s present
rebuttal
to
(1958), reversing,
Cir.,
5
v. America,
UNITED STATES Appellee. TRUCKING, INC., Appellant,
RAHIER Appellee. 19898, 19899.
Nos. Ninth Circuit.
Aug. Moore, Velikanje,
John Moore S. & Yakima, Wash., appel- Countryman, lants. Jones, Acting Atty.
John B. Kutz, Gen., Jackson, Henry Lee A. I. Waxman, Harry Marselli, Robert I. Attys., Dept, Justice, Washington, C., Freeman, D. Frank R.