CARL H. BISTRAM, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
U. S. PAROLE BOARD, 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 Parole Board did not err in classifying the offense as 'greatest' severity, considering aggravating circumstances.
Appellant pleaded guilty to attempted bank robbery with a dangerous weapon and was sentenced to 25 years. The Parole Board classified his offense as '…
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 Offense Severity Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, represented by counsel, was convicted on his plea of guilty of attempted bank robbery with a dangerous weapon, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(d). He was sentenced to 25 years on October 30, 1967. Appellant states that under his plea bargain, the court dismissed a kidnapping count, based on his taking of a hostage. Appellant complains because the Parole Board has classified his offense as of “greatest” severity. He contends this is error because he was convicted only of attempted armed robbery, rated “very high” severity, and the kidnapping charge was dismissed.
As the district court’s order well demonstrates, 28 C.F.R. § 2.20 (1975) authorizes the Board to modify an offense rating if there were mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Obviously there were aggravating circumstances in appellant’s case. It seems clear that the Parole Board has followed its own guidelines and has not acted arbitrarily in appellant’s case.
In his pro se brief, appellant contends that he could not legally have received more than 20 years on the attempted bank robbery using a dangerous weapon. The judgment shows that a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(d) was charged, for which the maximum punishment is 25 years.
The other assertions in appellant’s brief did not result in the Board’s decision to postpone consideration of appellant for parole. Appellant’s “history of violent conduct” would remain whether or not the murder conviction was set aside on “speedy trial” grounds.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Page v. United States Parole Comm'n, 651 F.2d 1083 (5th Cir. 1981)
-
Edwards v. United States, 574 F.2d 937 (8th Cir. 1978)
-
Payne v. United States, 539 F.2d 443 (5th Cir. 1976)
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)