MAYFIELD

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA

Citator

Cited By (35 total)

• Herman v. United States, 289 F.2d 362 (5th Cir. 1961)
  …se and direct the entry of such appropriate judgment”, but the appellate court has no authority to modify a sentence that is within the limits allowed by the applicable statute. Smith v. United States, 10 Cir., 1959, 273 F. 2d 462, certiorari denied 363 U.S. 846, 80 S.Ct. 1619, 4 L.Ed.2d 1729; United States v. Kapsalis, 7 Cir., 1954, 214 F. 2d 677, certiorari denied, Robinson v. United States, 349 U.S. 906, 75 S.Ct. 583, 99 L.Ed. 1242. The nature of the sentence rests in the discretion of the court below,…
• United States v. Bowen, 500 F.2d 960 (9th Cir. 1974)
  …rt on numerous occasions1 with no hint that the practice was constitutionally infirm. For us to reverse ourselves at this late date requires clear and convincing reasons. See Smith v. United States, 273 F. 2d 462, 465 (10th Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 846, 80 S.Ct. 1619, 4 L.Ed.2d 1729 (1960). I fail to see them in the majority decision. The only apparent change is the opinion, or better said opinions, in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 93 S.Ct. 2535, 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973). A careful…
• United States v. Cimino, 321 F.2d 509 (2d Cir. 1963)
  …United States, 9 Cir., 262 F. 2d 421, 422. There was no error in proceeding to trial without the missing witness. The granting of a continuance is a matter of discretion, see, e. g., Smith v. United States, 10 Cir., 273 F. 2d 462, 466, cert. denied 363 U.S. 846, 80 S.Ct. 1619, 4 L.Ed.2d 1729. We see no abuse of discretion in denial of the continuance. Appellant Cimino contends that the indictment should have been dismissed for vagueness. The point is utterly without merit. See Brown v. United States, 9 Ci…