HAROLD FRANK WHITE, 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 concurrent sentences for statutory violations are permissible if within the maximum provided, and other grounds for appeal were without merit.
The defendant was convicted and sentenced to two concurrent ten-year terms for violations of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a) and 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(b). The defe…
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 Vs. Consecutive Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
On this appeal from the conviction and sentence to two concurrent terms of ten years for violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113 (a) and 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(b), we conclude that the trial court did not err as to any of the grounds asserted.
While it is true that actual time to be served by one convicted of the violations of these two sections cannot be pyramided so as to exceed the maximum provided under the more severe, Prince v. United States, 352 U.S. 322, 77 S.Ct. 403, 1 L.Ed.2d 370, this does not invalidate either of two sentences to be served concurrently if within the maximum. See Williamson v. United States, 5 Cir., 265 F. 2d 236. In United States v. Romano, 382 U.S. 136, 86 S.Ct. 279, 15 L.Ed.2d 210, the Supreme Court said:
“We agree as to the invalidity of § 5601(b) (1) and the reversal of the convictions on Count 1. It is unnecessary, however, to consider the validity of § 5601(b) (4) and the convictions on Count 2 since the sentences on that count were concurrent with the sentences, not here challenged, which were imposed on Count 3. United States v. Gainey, 380 U.S. 63, 65 [85 S.Ct. 754, 756, 13 L.Ed.2d 658]; Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263, 299 [49 S.Ct. 268, 273, 73 L.Ed. 692].”
We have carefully considered each of the other grounds of appeal and find them to be without merit.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. White, 440 F.2d 978 (5th Cir. 1971)
-
White v. United States, 419 F.2d 374 (5th Cir. 1969)
Authorities Cited
- Prince v. United States, 352 U.S. 322 (U.S. 1957)
- Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1929)
- United States v. Gainey, 380 U.S. 63 (U.S. 1965)
- United States v. Romano, 382 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1965)
- Ellis Raymond Williamson v. United States, 265 F.2d 236 (5th Cir. 1959)