UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
EUGENE THOMAS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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 district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a defendant's motion for a copy of his presentence report.
Eugene Thomas, convicted of conspiracy to violate civil rights, sought a copy of his presentence report to challenge his conviction. The district cour…
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.
PER CURIAM:
Eugene Thomas has appealed from the district court’s denial of his motion for a copy of his presentence report, which he desires to use in connection with a projected attack on his judgment of conviction. We affirm.
Thomas was convicted upon trial by jury of conspiracy to violate civil rights. His conviction was affirmed on appeal, sub nom. Wilkins v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 376 F. 2d 552, cert. den’d 389 U.S. 964, 88 S.Ct. 342, 19 L.Ed.2d 379.
Rule 32(c), (2), F.R.Crim.P., provides in part that “The court before imposing sentence may disclose to the defendant or his counsel all or part of the material contained in the report of the presentence investigation and afford an opportunity to the defendant or his counsel to comment thereon.”
This Court has consistently held that Rule 32 places the disclosure of the contents of the presentence report, or any part of it, within the sound discretion of the sentencing court. United States v. Rubin, 5 Cir. 1970, 433 F. 2d 442; United States v. Bakewell, 5 Cir. 1970, 430 F. 2d 721; United States v. Chapman, 5 Cir. 1969, 420 F. 2d 925; Roeth v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 380 F. 2d 755, cert. den’d 390 U.S. 1015, 88 S.Ct. 1266, 20 L.Ed.2d 165. Since Thomas has not shown that the district court abused its discretion, the judgment of the district court denying his motion for a copy of the presentence report is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Frontero, 452 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1971)
-
United States v. Horsley, 519 F.2d 1264 (5th Cir. 1975)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Rubin, 433 F.2d 442 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Collie Leroy Wilkins, Jr. v. United States, 376 F.2d 552 (5th Cir. 1967)
- Roeth v. United States, 380 F.2d 755 (5th Cir. 1967)
- United States v. Bakewell, 430 F.2d 721 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Sanders v. Bonomi (Association of the Bar of the City of N.Y.), 390 U.S. 1015 (U.S. 1968)
- Mouton v. Tex. Gas Exploration Corp., 390 U.S. 1015 (U.S. 1968)
- United States v. Chapman, 420 F.2d 925 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Stiltner v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 964 (U.S. 1967)
- Chero v. New York, 389 U.S. 964 (U.S. 1967)