ROY SALINAS, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE

5th Cir. | 1970-04-17
No. 28670
424 F.2d 541 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1970) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate sentence.


Facts & Procedural History

A federal convict, serving a sentence for selling narcotics not in the original stamped package, moved to vacate his sentence. He argued his guilty pl…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is taken from an order of the district court denying the motion of a federal convict to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm.1

Appellant is currently serving an eight-year sentence for violating 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a), selling narcotic drugs (Heroin) not in the original stamped package, to which he pled guilty. In his § 2255 motion to vacate sentence, appellant contends that his guilty plea “was coerced by the then existing weight of authorities which held that the privilege against self-incrimination could not be asserted by those in [his] circumstances.” He urges that the reasoning in Leary v. United States, 1969, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57, applies to his case, arguing that by being required to register and pay the tax he is being forced to incriminate himself for a state prosecution. The district court denied relief based upon this Court’s opinion in United States v. Walker, 5th Cir. 1969, 414 F. 2d 876. For the reasons expressed in Walker, the judgment below is affirmed. See also Turner v. United States, 1970, 396 U.S. 398, 90 S.Ct. 642, 24 L.Ed.2d 610.

Affirmed.

. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s local Rule 9(c) (2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 5th Cir. 1969, 412 F. 2d 981.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw