United States v. Lawrence W. Peden, 254 F.2d 514 (3rd Cir. 1958). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Lawrence W. Peden, 254 F.2d 514 (3rd Cir. 1958). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Berkshire International Corp. v. Alba-Waldensian, Inc. (nysd, 1972-12-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Berkshire International Corp. v. Alba-Waldensian, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1972 · confidence medium
See Agrashell, Inc. v. Bernard Sirotta Co., 344 F.2d 583, 589 (2d Cir. 1965) ; Gelfand v. Tanner Motor Tours, Ltd., 339 F.2d 317, 323 (2d Cir. 1964) ; Monteiro v. San Nicolas, S.A., 254 F.2d 514, 517 (2d Cir. 1958). 5 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shibo Hayashi v. Red Wing Peat Corporation
9th Cir. · 1968 · confidence medium
D.C. 182, 327 F.2d 880, 883 (1963) ; Monteiro v. Sociedad Mar San Nicolas, S.A., 254 F.2d 514, 517 (2d Cir. 1958); Urquhart v. American-La France Foamite Corporation, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 219 , 144 F. 2d 542, 544 (1944); 4 Moore, Federal Practice fí 26.09 [.2-3] at 1104-05 (1967).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America
v.
Lawrence W. PEDEN, Appellant
12252.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
May 5, 1958.
254 F.2d 514
Lawrence W. Peden, pro se., Hubert I. Teitelbaum, U. S. Atty., Samuel S. Blaufeld, Asst. U. S. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.
Goodrich, McLAUGHLIN, Per Curiam, Staley.
Published
PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court denying a petition in the nature of one for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate judgment and sentence imposed following a jury trial in the district court. The points raised by the appellant are not those which may be considered under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. It has been said many times that relief under this section is not available to substitute for proceedings to review. See our language in United States v. Gallagher, 3 Cir., 1950, 183 F.2d 342, 344. The appellant’s case falls squarely within this rule and the district judge was correct in denying the petition.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.