PAUL T. NELSON, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE; GEOFFREY C. KNAPP, ETC., PETITIONER-APPELLANT, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
PER CURIAM:
Paul T. Nelson and Geoffrey C. Knapp were convicted of drug offenses as members of the crew of a boat. They filed 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motions to modify their sentences contending that they received more severe sentences than the captain of the boat, their employer, a codefendant who was convicted with them and whom they contend was more culpable than they. The district court denied both motions. This Court consolidated the separate appeals.
Although the Government points out reasons for the disparity in the sentences, we cannot concern ourselves with the merits of appellants’ position for two reasons.
First, the severity of a sentence within the statutory limits is not subject to review by an appellate court. United States v. Diaz, 662 F. 2d 713, 719 (11th Cir.1981); United States v. Becker, 569 F. 2d 951, 965 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 865, 99 S.Ct. 188, 58 L.Ed.2d 174 (1978), 439 U.S. 1048, 99 S.Ct. 726, 58 L.Ed.2d 708 (1978); United States v. White, 524 F. 2d 1249, 1254 (5th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 922, 96 S.Ct. 2629, 49 L.Ed.2d 375 (1976).
Second, although the sentencing process may be reviewed by the district court on a § 2255 motion, the severity of a sentence within statutory limits may not be reviewed because it raises no constitutional or statutory question. See Williams v. Alabama, 403 F. 2d 1019, 1020 (5th Cir.1968) (§ 2254 habeas case) (sentence within statutory limit is generally not subject to constitutional attack); Castle v. United States, 399 F. 2d 642, 652 (5th Cir.1968) (§ 2255 case) (sentence within statutory limit is not reviewable on appeal and does not amount to a constitutional violation).
These former Fifth Circuit decisions are controlling authority in this circuit. Bonner v. City of Prichard, Alabama, 661 F. 2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc).
Appellants seek relief solely on the basis of alleged disparity in the sentences. They do not point to error in the sentencing process and do not contend that their sentences exceed statutory limits.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Richardson, 764 F.2d 1514 (11th Cir. 1985)…o recommendation at all. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1251(a)(ll) (West 1970). Hence, the trial court did not act improperly or impose on the appellants a sentence beyond the statutory confines, and this Court will not vacate the sentences. Nelson v. United States, 709 F. 2d 39, 40 (11th Cir.1983). IX. Conclusion None of the appellants have established the existence of any reversible error in the trial below. Accordingly, the judgments of conviction entered against the appellants by the district court are AFFIRMED. . Th…
-
Fernandez v. United States, 941 F.2d 1488 (11th Cir. 1991)…ill, 368 U.S. at 426-27, 82 S.Ct. at 470 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255). However, sentences imposed within the statutory limits are insulated from section 2255 review. Kett v. United States, 722 F. 2d 687, 690 (11th Cir.1984); Nelson v. United States, 709 F. 2d 39, 40 (11th Cir.1983). The district court sentenced Fernandez pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1963 to twelve years in prison for each of his 18 U.S.C. § 1962 offenses. These sentences are well within the twenty-year maximum sentence that the law allows for…
-
United States v. Allen, 724 F.2d 1556 (11th Cir. 1984)…is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and a sentence imposed will not be reversed unless it is beyond statutory or constitutional limits. U.S. v. Campbell, 711 F. 2d 159, 160 (11th Cir.1983) (per curiam); Nelson v. U.S., 709 F. 2d 39, 40 (11th Cir.1983) (per curiam). Allen’s sentence was in conformity with the governing statutes, and as held above, did not violate the double jeopardy clause. AFFIRMED.…
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 (12 total)
- Bonner v. City OF Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981)
- United States v. Becker, 569 F.2d 951 (5th Cir. 1978)
- Whitney v. Brann et vir., 426 U.S. 922 (U.S. 1976)
- Mehra v. Bentz et vir., 426 U.S. 922 (U.S. 1976)
- Becker v. United States, 439 U.S. 865 (U.S. 1978)
- Bd. of Educ. v. State Bd. of Educ. of Ohio, 439 U.S. 865 (U.S. 1978)
- United States v. White, 524 F.2d 1249 (5th Cir. 1975)
- Molina v. Richardson, 439 U.S. 1048 (U.S. 1978)
- Lee v. United States, 439 U.S. 1048 (U.S. 1978)
- Castle v. United States, 399 F.2d 642 (5th Cir. 1968)