CLAUDE LEON GUIDRY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT-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 sentence imposed under the Youth Corrections Act did not violate constitutional protections and affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate.
Appellant pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor offense and was sentenced under the Youth Corrections Act to an indeterminate sentence. He argued this sente…
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 Ex Post Facto Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is from an order denying a motion to vacate and set aside a sentence. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. Guidry v. United States, E.D.La., 1970, 317 F.Supp. 1110. We affirm.
Appellant pleaded guilty to violating 26 U.S.C.A., § 5674 a misdemeanor offense carrying a maximum one year sentence. On May 7,1969, he was sentenced under the provisions of the Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C.A., §§ 5005-5026, to an indeterminate sentence which, under the Act, § 5017, could not exceed four years with a possibility of two more years under supervision.
Pointing to the disparity between the one year maximum sentence to which an adult or juvenile offender charged with the same offense would be subjected as compared with his own circumstances, appellant mounts a vigorous attack on his sentence on constitutional grounds, alleging that it violates the equal protection and due process clauses, and that it also constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. This particular Act of Congress, beginning with Cunningham v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 256 F. 2d 467, has withstood similar attacks with unfailing consistency. See, among others, Abernathy v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969, 418 F. 2d 288; United States v. Rehfield, 9 Cir., 1969, 416 F. 2d 273; United States v. Dancis, 2 Cir., 1969, 406 F. 2d 729; Foston v. United States, 8 Cir., 1968, 389 F. 2d 86; Johnson v. United States, 4 Cir., 1967, 374 F. 2d 966; Brisco v. United States, 3 Cir., 1966, 368 F. 2d 214; Rogers v. United States, 10 Cir., 1963, 326 F. 2d 56; Carter v. United States, 1962, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 123, 306 F. 2d 283.
We find nothing in appellant's argument which persuades us to depart from these previous holdings. Neither do we find any merit in appellant’s argument that the provisions of the Act operate as an ex post facto law. Both the law to which he pleaded guilty and the Youth Corrections Act were in force at the time he committed the offense.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Ashley, 569 F.2d 975 (5th Cir. 1978)
-
United States v. Canniff, 521 F.2d 565 (2d Cir. 1975)
-
United States v. Arrington, 618 F.2d 1119 (5th Cir. 1980)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Carter v. United States, 306 F.2d 283 (D.C. Cir. 1962)
- Cunningham v. United States, 256 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1958)
- Rogers v. United States, 326 F.2d 56 (10th Cir. 1963)
- Brisco v. United States, 368 F.2d 214 (3d Cir. 1966)
- Abernathy v. United States, 418 F.2d 288 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Foston v. United States, 389 F.2d 86 (8th Cir. 1968)
- Johnson v. United States, 374 F.2d 966 (4th Cir. 1967)
- United States v. Rehfield, 416 F.2d 273 (9th Cir. 1969)
- United States v. Dancis, 406 F.2d 729 (2d Cir. 1969)