ASAHEL ABRAMS, 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 District Court properly denied the motion to correct the sentence without a hearing.
Appellant sought to correct his sentence, arguing the written judgment differed from the oral pronouncement regarding the sequence of consecutive sent…
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 Motion To Correct Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant filed a motion in the District Court seeking “correction” of his sentence on the ground that the judgment as recorded and signed by the trial judge failed to conform with the judgment pronounced orally.1 The difference to which appellant alludes is the written judgment’s specification of the sequence in which appellant’s sentences should be served. The oral judgment merely declared that the two sentences should be served consecutively without specifying which sentence would be served first.
The District Court properly treated appellant’s motion as one under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and correctly concluded that “the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief.” 2 United States v. Daugherty, 1926, 269 U.S. 360, 46 S.Ct. 156, 70 L.Ed. 309. The denial of the motion without hearing therefore is
Affirmed.
. Appellant’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. 1956, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 46, 237 F. 2d 42, certiorari denied, 1957, 352 U.S. 1018, 77 S.Ct. 575, 1 L.Ed.2d 554.
. This case is not like Gilliam v. United States, - U.S.App.D.C. -, 269 F. 2d 770, No. 14,900 (D.C.Cir.), June 18, 1959, where the written sentence did not conform to the sentence as pronounced and was later corrected without a hearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Daugherty, 269 U.S. 360 (U.S. 1926)
- Gilliam v. United States, 269 F.2d 770 (D.C. Cir. 1959)
- Asahel Abrams v. United States, 237 F.2d 42 (D.C. Cir. 1956)
- Abrams v. United States, 352 U.S. 1018 (U.S. 1957)
- Zachary v. United States, 352 U.S. 1018 (U.S. 1957)