BEVINS

v.

CALIFORNIA

Citator

Cited By

• 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. Barnes, 486 F.2d 776 (8th Cir. 1973)
  …possible prejudice. Thus, where the witness is not disclosed but is produced at trial and the defendant is given ample opportunity for cross-examination no prejudice results. See Smith v. United States, 273 F. 2d 462 (10th Cir. 1959), cert, denied, 363 U.S. 846, 80 S.Ct. 1619, 4 L.Ed.2d 1729 (1960). In some instances no prejudice results if the informant’s identity was either known by the defendant or else disclosed through the testimony of other witnesses. See, e. g., Churder v. United States, 387 F. 2d 8…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• McWILLIAMS v. United States, 394 F.2d 41 (8th Cir. 1968)
  …that case, documented by authority from other circuits, cogently demonstrated the reason why offenders of certain narcotic statutes are not eligible for parole. See also Smith v. United States, 273 F. 2d 462, 467-468 (10th Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 846, 80 S.Ct. 1619, 4 L.Ed.2d 1729 (1960); Black v. United States, 269 F. 2d 38, 43 (9th Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 938, 80 S.Ct. 379, 4 L.Ed.2d 357 (1960). Since the sentences here are within the statutory limits, we will not intercede to revi…