v2978-871

7

Court, that, on its face, the motion sought relief that

the moving party was not entitled to. Accordingly, the

Court did not make findings of fact or conclusions of

law as none were required. Crawford v. United States

(C.A. 6) 219 F. 2d 478.

CONCLUSION

The appellant, Joseph M. Brule, was tried and

convicted by a jury of his peers. He was represented

during the trial and the subsequent sentencing of the

Court by counsel of his own choosing. Long after the

time for appeal had run, he attempted to attack the

adequacy of the proceedings and the sufficiency of

the evidence against him by way of a motion made

pursuant to Section 2255, Title 28, U.S.C. It is re-

spectfully submitted that the provisions of that sec-

tion have no application to the factual situation in this

case. Hence, the appellant is not entitled to the relief

he prays. The Order of the District Court entered

May 15, 1956, should therefore be affirmed.

Respectfully submitted,

CHARLES P. MORIARTY

United States Attorney

JOHN A. ROBERTS, JR.

Assistamt United States Attorney

---

archive.org Volume Name: govuscourtsca9briefs2978

Volume: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs2978

Document Link: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs2978#page/n870/mode/1up

Top Keywords (auto-generated):

submitted, relief, tried, title, sufficiency, subsequent, spectfully, sought, situation, sentencing, section, roberts, respectfully, represented, pursuant

Top Key Phrases (auto-generated):

subsequent sentencing, submitted charles, spectfully submitted, sought relief, section 2255, respectfully submitted, factual situation, 2d 478., 2255 title

Document Status: UGLY