*1 790 ment, being face, 40, void on its makes re- 274, 72 page S.Ct. at if even Sec- corpus the writ of to habeas the tion 2255 provided, had not so the same re- sole and remedy your available to sult would necessarily have followed under
petitioner.” previous Supreme Court decisions. See Boyle, Stack v. 1951, 1, 6-7, 342 U.S. 72 The contention noted is above void 1; Hoy, 1913, 245, S.Ct. 227 U.S. of merit. After the lower court made its Johnson 240, 33 S.Ct. 497; parte 57 L.Ed. Royall, Ex order denying writ, for the 1886, 241, 734, U.S. Supreme S.Ct. 29 L.Ed. Court Hayman reversed this Hayman, 205, United States v. 342 U.S. Section supra, sets forth in clear upheld constitutionality S.Ct. 263. It and unambiguous language procedure of Section describing required to follow. prescribed adequate therein as He and effec- saw fit to disregard it and for reasons reads, part, tive. Section 2255 fol- indicated as Hayman the later decision of lows Supreme : Court the lower court should have refusеd entertain prisoner “A .to habeas cor- custody under sen- * pus * * petition. The appealed tence a court claiming vacаted, from is and the cause is to remanded be released with directions to appellant’s dismiss ground imposed that the sentence was habeas corpus petition. in violation of the Constitution or laws ** * States, may United imposed move the court the sen- vacate, tence tо set aside or correct the
sentence.
[******] “An application for a writ of habeas
corpus prisoner in behalf of a who is apply for authorized to relief mo- BRADLEY MIN. CO. v. BOICE. pursuant section, tion to this shall not entertained, ap- appears if plicant apply relief, by has failed Ninth Circuit. motion, court which sentenced Aug. 27, 1952. him, or that such сourt has denied him relief, appears unless it also inadequate
remedy motion or in- legality
effective test the of his de- ours.) (Emphasis
tention.” expressly of Section 2255
provides proce- in a where
dure established that section is “inade- ineffective”,
quate petitioner may corpus.
then seek a writ habeas not indicate does that a motion un-
der Section been “in-
adequate or ineffective”. The contentions fall far short meeting
test. expressly Section 2255 Pope, Judge, dissented.
extraordinary remedy of corpus habeas pending withheld resort established procedures providing the same relief. The plain Hayman Court made
case, supra, page 342 U.S. at footnote *2 charges against the made
awardable. The accepted by the defendant, presumably аnd it, were jury as before true on the evidence to blast for conduct nature calculated doc- young at threshold efforts of a the thе profession. tor to in his establish himself problem resem- presented scant bore Pacific v. blance to Southern Co. Cir., speculation аs 186 F.2d and probable who the attitude here of the judges participated perceivable in has no Guthrie basis. trial, presided con judge who at the by jury
vinced that the
was not motivated
verdict,
prejudice
or
its
and
a
excessive,
Cal.,
large,
while
denied
Francisco,
D.avis,
Parks
San
John
motion for
ourselves
Being
a new trial.1
Ralph
Bre-
Oscar
and
R.
W. Worthwine
usurp
disinclined to
of the
George Donart,
the functions
shears, Boise,
Idahо,
jury
province
or to
the
the dis
invade
of
Idaho,
Dunne,
Weiser,
and Arthur B.
San
being, moreover,
opinion
trict judge, and
of
Francisco, Cal.,
appellant.
for
judge
right
refusing
in
to dis
Hawley,
Langroise
Jr.,
B.
H.
and
W.
Jess
verdict,
Appellant
turb the
we affirmed.
Boise,
Sullivan,
Idaho,
appellee.
W. E.
for
appeal
opportunity
has had its
for
and its
POPE,
HEALY, BONE,
Before
and
or other relief
the
Judges.
Circuit
proc
pursue
Court. It is not entitled to
the
aess secоnd time.
PER CURIAM.
The motion for leave to file is denied.
In
judgment
this case we affirmed a
against
appellant,
the
of the
one member
POPE,
Judge (dissenting).
dissenting.
сourt
Appellant
this expressed knowing court ment mеmbers of by all the probably court would problems who of the constitute to some disagree. and for that involved, bank That is this case hearing in оne in which a *3 as reason I we, that think that a should granted. should I think granted. heard members of this division which originally, hear- case recommend a should аll the
ing invite in bank and our action
judges to participate. not based
My views are disagreed
upon mere fact I have that majority the result reached CLAWSON v. UNITED STATES. upon feeling that a opinion here, my nor given has been grave miscаrriage justice Rath- stamp approval by this court. ¡based upon the demon- my er views are Ninth Circuit. case probability that were this strable Aug. 28, would result all seven a different Rehearing Nov. Denied ex- study of the views A
be achieved. in South-
pressed by seven of Company ern Pacific why I 926, will disclose in bank hearing
think it evident produce a different result.
would previous pointed out
As I have case, upon the verdict which
dissent in this entered here has
judgment has been excessive merely
vice not by the validity tainted is
amount but matters injecting the case
errors in into to arouse
highly prеjudicial and calculated jury. prejudice of the stronger than was Guthrie.
is a any point making am is that that I hearing the matter where the division probability fair say that there is a can arrive at a would
all seven of expressed by than that different conclusion division, is majority a mere hearing bank. appropriate one contrary holding intelligently mean vote practical matter, (c) would, lose in subdivision as a There seеm to now has to ex- 28 which would it 46 of Title § grant the pedite through judges- circuit of cases divisions. to order hear- of matters before of the cirсuit any case, instance, present ing in bank in case the For compris- printed am not volumes which I fills four question nearly pages propоsing ing is a and I what a here. That know majority opin- record. determined to read that task although- case, statute intended that ion in the Western think thе I do not I, seems to think that of the division which Denman a member not question case, I reserve should was. Western Pacific time as determination be- ment until such read all the record to might necessary. necessary find comes well Ias