JOHN THOMAS FITTS, 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 affirmed the denial of the appellant's motion for sentence credit.
Appellant was convicted of violating the Dyer Act and sentenced. He sought credit for a period between sentencing and commencement of his sentence, an…
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 Sentence Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, John Thomas Fitts, was-on February 7, 1964, convicted by a jury in the District of Kansas of violating the Dyer Act. On March 16, 1964, he was. sentenced to serve four years with the sentence to run concurrently with a sentence previously imposed in another district. This court has affirmed the conviction (Fitts v. United States, 335 F. 2d 1021, cert. denied 379 U.S. 979, 85 S.Ct. 682, 13 L.Ed.2d 569). Fitts next filed motion to vacate sentence and/or petition for writ of habeas corpus which was denied and such denial affirmed by this, court. (Fitts v. Willingham, 359 F. 2d 790).
In the instant proceeding appellant contends that since he was sentenced on March 16,1964, made election not to commence serving the sentence on March 31, 1964, and being in custody during the interim, he is entitled to credit on his sentence for this two weeks under Rule 38 F.R.Crim.P. It was brought to our attention during argument and is undisputed that appellant has been given credit for this time.
The second contention made by Fitts is that he should be allowed an additional credit on his sentence of two weeks because his first election not to commence-serving his sentence, though written and witnessed, was not properly notarized. This point was not briefed and was not presented to the court below so will not. be considered here.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Hubbard, 603 F.2d 137 (10th Cir. 1979)
-
Hampton v. United States, 504 F.2d 600 (10th Cir. 1974)
-
United States v. Montgomery, 582 F.2d 514 (10th Cir. 1978)
Authorities Cited
- Fitts v. United States, 335 F.2d 1021 (10th Cir. 1964)
- King v. Missouri, 379 U.S. 979 (U.S. 1965)
- Rohr v. New York, 379 U.S. 979 (U.S. 1965)
- Fitts v. Willingham, 359 F.2d 790 (10th Cir. 1966)