OSCAR DOUGLAS NELSON, JR., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-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 imposing a federal sentence while a state sentence is being served is not error and has been approved in prior decisions.
Appellant, serving a state prison sentence, petitioned for annulment of a federal sentence imposed while he was still serving his state sentence. His …
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 Writ Of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of the Court, this case has been placed on the summary calendar for disposition without oral argument.1
The appellant, who is serving a Florida state prison sentence, petitioned for annulment of a sentence imposed by the United States District Court in Tampa, Florida.
The district court denied relief on the merits, although the appellant has not commenced service of the sentence. See Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, 88 S.Ct. 1549, 20 L.Ed.2d 426 (1968).
The appellant’s sole contention was that it was error to impose the federal sentence while he was serving his state sentence. His presence in federal court was obtained by issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, in response to his pro se motion for a speedy trial.
Trial proceedings under these circumstances are common, and have been approved in many decisions. E. g., Clark v. United States, 5 Cir. 1966, 367 F. 2d 378; Gardner v. United States, 5 Cir. 1960, 274 F. 2d 380.
Other contentions of the appellant need not be discussed herein, since they are alleged for the first time in his appellate briefs.
The judgment is affirmed.
. In order to establish a docket control procedure, the Fifth Circuit adopted new Rules 17-20 on December 6, 1968. See Wittner v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969, 406 F. 2d 1165, Fn 1 and Appendix thereto.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grayson v. Louie L. Wainwright, 330 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1976)
-
Jackson C. Floyd v. Resor, 409 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1969)
-
Chunn v. Clark, 451 F.2d 1005 (5th Cir. 1971)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54 (U.S. 1968)
- Wittner v. United States, 406 F.2d 1165 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Clark v. United States, 367 F.2d 378 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Gardner v. United States, 274 F.2d 380 (5th Cir. 1960)