William Packnett v. United States, 435 F.2d 693 (5th Cir. 1970). · Go Syfert
Search
William Packnett v. United States, 435 F.2d 693 (5th Cir. 1970). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Thomas Henry Rhodes v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections (ca5, 1978-10-26)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Thomas Henry Rhodes v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections
5th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see also · confidence low
In order to substantiate his challenge to the effectiveness of his counsel appellant “must do more than make conclusional assertions.” Woodard v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1971, 447 F.2d 103 , 104; see also, Packnett v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 435 F.2d 693 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
William Packnett
v.
United States
693.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Dec 7, 1970.
435 F.2d 693
Published

435 F.2d 693

William PACKNETT, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 30384 Summary Calendar.*
*(1) Rule 18, 5th Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc.
v.
Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5th Cir. 1970, 431

F.2d 409, Part I.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 7, 1970.

William Packnett, pro se.

Gerald J. Gallinghouse, U.S. Atty., Joseph R. mcMahon, jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., New Orleans, La., for respondent-appellee.

Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Packnett appeals following the District Court's denial of his motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255. Only two of his contentions merit discussion: First, that the Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C.A. 5005-5026 VIOLATES THE FIFTH AND EIGHTH AMENDMENTS; and second, that he received ineffective assistance from trial counsel. In Guidry v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 433 F.2d 968, this Court recently reaffirmed its previous decision that the Youth Corrections Act is constitutional. There is no distinction between Guidry and the instant controversy.

2

In regard to the alleged inadequacies of counsel, Packnett has submitted no facts which, if true, would substantiate his claim. Williams v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1965, 354 F.2d 698, 704; see O'Neal v. Smith, 5 Cir. 1970,431 F.2d 646; United States v. Long, 5 Cir. 1969, 419 F.2d 91, 94.

3

The District Court's order denying Packnett's motion to vacate sentence is

4

Affirmed.