YELVINGTON
v.
UNITED STATES
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.
The court held that the judgment clearly and definitively stated that the sentences were to run consecutively, and thus the motion to modify was properly denied.
The defendant was convicted on multiple counts of violating federal statutes and sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment. He filed a motion to …
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Concurrent Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
PHILLIPS, Chief Judge.
Yelvington filed a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to correct a judgment and commitment.
An indictment was returned against Yelvington and five others. It contained eight counts. Counts 1, and 3 to 7, inclusive, charged violations of 18 U.S.C.A. § 408 [now §§ 2311-2313], and the eighth count charged a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 88 [now § 371].1 He was convicted on counts 1, and 3 to 8, inclusive. That part of the judgment material here reads as follows: “It is thereupon by the Court here considered, ordered and adjudged that the defendant, Jack Yelvington, for the offenses by him committed, as charged in the first and third counts of the indictment, be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for imprisonment in. an institution of the type to be designated by the Attorney General or his authorized representative for the period of five (5) years from date of delivery, on each of said counts, or until released by due process of law. It is further ordered that said 'sentences of confinement herein shall run consecutively.”
On each of counts 4 to 8, inclusive, imposition of sentence was suspended, and he was placed on probation, to commence upon his release from the sentences of imprisonment imposed under counts 1 and 3.2
The motion was to modify the judgment and the commitment to show that the sentences of imprisonment were to run concurrently. The trial court denied the motion.
The judgment is clear and definite. It makes it plain that the sentences are to run consecutively. See United States v. Daugherty, 269 U.S. 360, 363, 46 S.Ct. 156, 70 L.Ed. 309; Gillenwaters v. Biddle, 8 Cir., 18 F. 2d 206, 207.
Affirmed.
. Yelvington was not named in count 2.
. The court reporter’s transcript of the language of the court in imposing sentence, in part, reads: “It is the judgment of the court that you be sentenced on the first count to 5 years in the custody of the Attorney General; on the third count 5 years in the custody of the Attorney General, to run consecutively, making a total of 10 years.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. Woods, 182 F.2d 338 (5th Cir. 1950)
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Daugherty, 269 U.S. 360 (U.S. 1926)
- Gillenwaters v. Biddle, 18 F.2d 206 (8th Cir. 1927)