LSSLIE C. BOSTICK AND CHARLES P. LAINHART, APPELLANTS,
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.
A defendant receiving the maximum sentence on multiple concurrent counts is considered to have received the maximum sentence provided by law for good time credit computation.
The United States petitioned for rehearing after a prior decision regarding sentence computation. The defendant received the maximum sentence on sever…
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 Maximum Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The petition of the United States for a rehearing is denied.
A defendant who receives the maximum sentence on each of several counts, the sentences to run concurrently, must be considered as having received the maximum sentence provided by law within the meaning of Bryans v. Blackwell, 5 Cir. 1967, 387 F. 2d 764. See the recent decision of this Court in United States v. McCullough, 5 Cir. 1969, 405 F. 2d 722. Accord: Lee v. United States, 9 Cir. 1968, 400 F. 2d 185. In the case now before the Court, therefore, the good time credit should be computed at the rate of ten days a month because the maximum sentence of ten years was imposed upon the defendants.
To clarify our original opinion, we point out that there is no need to remand the case for a sentence allowing credit for time served prior to sentencing. “The computation of the service of a legally rendered sentence is an administrative responsibility.” Lee v. United States, 400 F. 2d at 189. The law requires the Attorney General to give credit administratively to the defendants for the pre-sentence jail service.
The petition of Charles P. Lainhart for a rehearing is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Soyka v. Alldredge, 481 F.2d 303 (3d Cir. 1973)
-
United States v. Clayton, 588 F.2d 1288 (9th Cir. 1979)
-
United States v. Lewis, 447 F.2d 1262 (D.C. Cir. 1971)
Authorities Cited
- Bryans v. Blackwell, 387 F.2d 764 (5th Cir. 1967)
- LEE v. United States, 400 F.2d 185 (9th Cir. 1968)
- United States v. McCULLOUGH, 405 F.2d 722 (5th Cir. 1969)