GEORGE VEGA-MURRILLO, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
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 transportation of each alien constitutes a separate offense under the statute, and the punishment is within Congress's discretion.
Appellant pleaded guilty to transporting three aliens in three counts of an indictment. He argued this constituted only one offense. The statute, howe…
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 Illegal Transportation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal in forma pauperis from a denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to correct an allegedly illegal sentence. Appellant has served the sentence of three years imposed on him on his plea of guilty to Count I of a three count indictment charging the illegal transportation of aliens. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1324(a) (2). Appellant also pleaded guilty to Counts II and III, and was sentenced to two consecutive terms of two years each, to be served consecutively to the Count I sentence.
Each indictment of the transportation referred to one time, one auto, one origin, and one destination, but referred to three individual aliens. Appellant urges this can be but one offense.
The statute to which appellant entered his pleas, itself specifically provides that transportation of each alien shall constitute a separate offense.
The appropriate punishment for a particular federal offense is a matter subject only to the discretion of Con gress, provided no constitutional limitation is violated. Bell v. United States, 1955, 349 U.S. 81, 75 S.Ct. 620, 99 L.Ed. 905. When Congress clearly defines the unit of prosecution, the courts cannot intervene, nor by “interpretation” change the law.
We have heretofore passed on this same appellant’s identical claim. We affirm what we have previously said, Vega-Murrillo v. United States, 9 Cir., 1957, 247 F. 2d 735, and we affirm the district court herein.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Rosas, 873 F.2d 1177 (9th Cir. 1989)
Authorities Cited
- Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81 (U.S. 1955)
- Vega-Murrillo v. United States, 247 F.2d 735 (9th Cir. 1957)