SMITH

v.

CALIFORNIA

Citator

Cited By

• Cohen v. United States, 593 F.2d 766 (6th Cir. 1979)
  …ective of the clearly prevailing rule that judicial review of events occurring after sentence is properly had under § 2241. United States v. DiRusso, 535 F. 2d 673, 675 (1st Cir. 1976); Gomori v. Arnold, 533 F. 2d 871, 875 (3d Cir. 1976), cert. den. 429 U.S. 851, 97 S.Ct. 140, 50 L.Ed.2d 125 (1976); Zannino v. Arnold, 531 F. 2d 687, 689 (3rd Cir. 1976); McNair v. McCune, 527 F. 2d 874, 875 (4th Cir. 1975); Lee v. United States, 501 F. 2d 494, 499 (8th Cir. 1974); Robinson v. United States, 474 F. 2d 1085, 1…
• United States v. Grimes, 641 F.2d 96 (3d Cir. 1981)
  …e, and would overrule prior decisions by this Court which held that a federal district court “has no power to direct that a federal sentence shall run concurrently with a state sentence.” Gomori v. Arnold, 533 F. 2d 871, 875 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 851, 97 S.Ct. 140, 50 L.Ed.2d 125 (1976). Since Gomori declared that “[t]he rule of presumptive concurrency of sentences .. . does not apply where one sentence is imposed by a federal court and the other by a state court,” Ali cannot succeed in demand…
• United States v. Williams, 651 F.2d 644 (9th Cir. 1981)
  …vely to any existing state sentence. Barkin, Comments on Various Sentencing Situations, 37 F.R.D. 191, 195 (1964); accord, Causey v. Civiletti, 621 F. 2d 691, 693 n.2 (5th Cir. 1980); Gomori v. Arnold, 533 F. 2d 871, 875-76 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 851, 97 S.Ct. 140, 50 L.Ed.2d 125 (1976); Larios v. Madigan, 299 F. 2d 98, 100 (9th Cir. 1962). In other words, a district court’s desire that a sentence run concurrently with or consecutively to a state sentence will be carried out by the Bureau of Pri…