James David Eller v. United States, 327 F.2d 639 (9th Cir. 1964). · Go Syfert
Search
James David Eller v. United States, 327 F.2d 639 (9th Cir. 1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Norman Ray Freelove v. United States (ca9, 1994-05-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1964 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1964 1995 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#14 18 U.S.C. § 752 cited 2× in this case · 109 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Norman Ray Freelove v. United States
9th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
We decline to address the merits of this argument because it was not raised in Freelove's opening brief, see United States v. Luther, 521 F.2d 408, 411 (9th Cir.1975) (arguments raised for the first time in reply brief not considered on appeal), and was not raised in the district court, see Eller v. United States, 327 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1964) (issue not raised in district court on a Sec. 2255 motion should not be considered on appeal). 13 AFFIRMED. * The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wayne Stanley Page v. United States
9th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Flores-Payon, 942 F.2d at 558 ; Eller v. United States, 327 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1964).
discussed Cited "see" James Foston v. United States
8th Cir. · 1968 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, Eller v. United States, 327 F.2d 639 (9th Cir. 1964); Rogers v. United States, 326 F.2d 56, 57 (10th Cir. 1963); Carter v. United States, 306 F.2d 283 (D.C.Cir. 1962) ; Cunningham v. United States, 256 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1958).
cited Cited "see" In re Lee
E.D.N.Y · 1964 · signal: see · confidence high
See Eller v. United States, 327 F.2d 639 (9th Cir. 1964); Pilkington v. United States, supra; Carter v. United States, 306 F.2d 283 (1962).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Joyce Loraine Leming, United States of America v. Lash La Rue (2×)
9th Cir. · 1976 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Eller v. United States, 327 F.2d 639 (9th Cir. 1964).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James David ELLER, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
18666_1.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Feb 25, 1964.
327 F.2d 639
Dewey E. Turner, Palo Alto, Cal., for appellant., Moody Brickett, U. S. Atty., Great Falls, Mont., and Richmond F. Allan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Billings, Mont., for ap-pellee.
Madden, Claims, Chambers, Browning.
Cited by 27 opinions  |  Published
BROWNING, Circuit Judge.

Appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of assisting in the escape of a prisoner in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 752. Since the prisoner was charged with a misdemeanor, appellant’s offense was likewise a misdemeanor, punishable by confinement for not more than one year. Appellant was sentenced under the Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 5005-5026, which provides for conditional release within four years and unconditional release within six years. § 5017 (c). Appellant’s subsequent motion under 28 U. S.C.A. § 2255, challenging the constitutionality of the Youth Corrections Act as applied to him, was denied by the District Court in reliance upon Carter v. United States, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 123, 306 F.2d 283 (1962), and Cunningham v. United States, 256 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1958). This appeal followed.

Since the District Court’s decision we have twice indicated our agreement with Carter and Cunningham. See Standley v. United States, 318 F.2d 700, 701 (9th Cir. 1963), and Young Hee Choy v. United States, 322 F.2d 64, 66 n. 7 (9th Cir. 1963). We now do so again.

In this court appellant also complains, for the first time, that he was not told[*640] prior to his plea of guilty and sentence that he might be sentenced under the Youth Corrections Act, and thus be subjected under his plea of guilty to a substantially longer period of restriction than that provided by 18 U.S.C.A. § 752.

The government responds that since this issue was not raised before the District Court it should not be considered on appeal (Standley v. United States, supra, 318 F.2d at 701) and that appellant’s remedy is in the District Court by way of a new motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 or an application under Rule 32 (d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Pilkington v. United States, 315 F.2d 204, 209 (4th Cir. 1963); Carter v. United States, supra, 306 F.2d at 285-286. See also Kadwell v. United States, 315 F.2d 667 (9th Cir. 1963). We agree.