JOHN E. SUTTON, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE

5th Cir. | 1959-05-22
No. 17628
Before RIVES, CAMERON and JONES, Circuit Judges.
266 F.2d 529 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1959) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.


Holding

The imposition of consecutive sentences for substantive and conspiracy counts does not constitute double punishment, and the sentence language was not ambiguous.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was convicted on two counts: conspiracy and a substantive offense related to marihuana. He received consecutive sentences and sought to set …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant unsuccessfully sought to have the district court set aside, under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, the sentence imposed after he was convicted on two counts of an indictment charging violation of the acts relating to marihuana. One of the counts on which he was convicted charged participation in a conspiracy and the other alleged the commission of a substantive offense.

It is claimed by the appellant that the imposition of consecutive sentences on substantive and conspiracy counts is double punishment in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The law is otherwise. Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 74 S.Ct. 358, 98 L.Ed. 435.

The claim is also made that the sentence of ten years on the conviction on the substantive charge “consecutive with” the sentence on the conspiracy charge is ambiguous and that the language used indicates that concurrent sentences were or may have been intended. Reliance is placed on Bledsoe v. Johnston, D.C.N.D.Cal.1944, 58 F.Supp. 129. This case does not sustain the appellant’s contention. See United States v. Daugherty, 269 U.S. 360, 46 S.Ct. 156, 70 L.Ed. 309.

A correct judgment was entered. It is

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw