NEVILLE J. TREAKLE, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 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 delay in sentencing was not unreasonable under the circumstances and did not violate Rule 32(a).
Appellant was charged with a Dyer Act violation while serving a state sentence. The district court delayed sentencing to aid appellant, but he later v…
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 18 U.S.C. § 4208(A)(2) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a forma pauperis appeal from a denial of a motion to vacate sentence made in the district court. Appellant had been originally charged with a Dyer Act violation (18 U.S.C. § 2312) while still serving a state sentence. On a plea of guilty, the district court judge, seeking to aid appellant, sought to delay sentence until appellant had been paroled on his state sentence. When that time came, appellant was released on his own recognizance until a date nearing the end of his probationary period.
Before that period expired, appellant violated his parole, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest; he appeared, admitted his violation, and was sentenced to five years under 18 U.S.C. § 4208(a) (2), which made him eligible for immediate parole.
The petition to vacate the sentence was based on unreasonable delay in sentencing. Under the circumstances here existing, and the very clear showing that the district court judge was endeavoring mightily to aid the appellant to aid himself, there was no unreasonable delay such as to violate Rule 32(a). Here there was a reason for the delay — an honest and legitimate reason which was to the advantage and benefit of appellant.
The record clearly discloses there was no indefinite suspension of sentence. Cf. Ex Parte United States, 1916, 242 U.S. 27, 37-53, 37 S.Ct. 72-79, 61 L.Ed. 129; Pratt v. United States, 1939, 70 App.D.C. 7, 102 F. 2d 275.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ex parte United States, 242 U.S. 27 (U.S. 1916)
- Pratt v. United States, 102 F.2d 275 (D.C. Cir. 1939)