United States v. Thomas Rodger Putney

Good Law
967 F.2d 595·1992 WL 129199·1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 24682
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 4, 199291-15810California412 words

Opinion

Opinion

967 F.2d 595 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Rodger PUTNEY, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-15810. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted May 26, 1992. * Decided June 4, 1992. Before FARRIS, DAVID R. THOMPSON and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Thomas Rodger Putney, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We review de novo, United States v. Poopola, 881 F.2d 811, 812 (9th Cir.1989), and we affirm. 3 A district court may dismiss a section 2255 motion summarily "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the motion and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to relief in the district court." Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2255. The district court need not hold an evidentiary hearing when the movant's allegations, viewed against the record,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.