UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
LARRY BROWN AND DWITE GENE ROVER, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
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 sentencing judge's failure to make an explicit finding regarding the Federal Youth Corrections Act at the time of sentencing was not reversible error under the circumstances.
Appellants were convicted and sentenced, and they appealed, raising several assignments of error including issues related to jury instructions, cross-…
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 Federal Youth Corrections Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
We have considered appellants’ assignments of error relating to the insufficiency of the evidence, the jury instructions on bias and on knowledge that the victims were federal officers, the scope of cross-examination, and the sentences as abuses of discretion and as cruel and unusual punishment. After careful review of the record and applicable law, we find these assignments of error to be without merit.
Appellants also urge that the sentencing judge committed reversible error in failing to make an explicit finding at the time of sentencing, as required by Dorszynski v. U. S., 418 U.S. 424, 94 S.Ct. 3042, 41 L.Ed.2d 855 (1974), that they would not benefit from treatment under the Federal Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5005 et seq. The record indicates the judge was aware of the Act at the time of sentencing and expressly declined to apply it. Moreover, he made explicit findings in ruling on motions to modify the sentences that neither appellant would benefit from treatment under the Act. These findings were made shortly after sentencing and on consideration of the entire record.
We do not approve of this practice, and the better practice in all cases is to enter a finding of record before imposing sentence. However, under the circumstances of this case a remand would be overly technical and useless. See U. S. v. Dover, 489 F. 2d 688 (5th Cir. 1974).
Additionally, appellant Rover is a young adult offender, over the age of 22, and the sentencing judge is not required to make explicit findings of no benefit in his case. U. S. v. Gamboa-Cano, 510 F. 2d 598 (5th Cir. 1975).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Rodriguez, 585 F.2d 1234 (5th Cir. 1978)
-
Brown v. United States, 551 F.2d 619 (5th Cir. 1977)
-
Sherod William Mitchell v. United States, 547 F.2d 875 (5th Cir. 1977)
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
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Dorszynski v. United States, 418 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1974)
- United States v. Erle W. McGOUGH, 510 F.2d 598 (5th Cir. 1975)
- United States v. Alvaro Gamboa-Cano, 510 F.2d 598 (5th Cir. 1975)
- United States v. Dover, 489 F.2d 688 (5th Cir. 1974)