HERBERT SPERLING, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
J. T. WILLINGHAM, WARDEN, RESPONDENT-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 sentences imposed were definite and clearly defined, and the statute under which one sentence was imposed is constitutional.
Appellant sought habeas corpus relief, arguing his two sentences were indefinite and that the statute imposing one sentence was unconstitutional. He i…
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 Parole Ineligibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Herbert Sperling, has appealed to this Court from denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the United States District Court. He states that he is concurrently serving two sentences: (1) for a term of 60 days to 6 years imposed on September 15, 1959, by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under the Youth Correction Act; and (2) for a term of 10 years imposed on February 19, 1960, by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Title 26, U.S.C.A. § 7237(d) [Narcotic Control Act of 1956] under which he is ineligible for parole.
Unlike the petitioner, we find the sentences definite, clearly defined, and within the general rule of United States v. Daugherty, 269 U.S. 360, 363, 46 S.Ct. 156, 70 L.Ed. 309 (1926) that sentences must reveal with fair certainty the intent of the court and exclude serious misapprehensions by those who must execute them, but that the elimination of all possible doubts cannot be demanded.
We find no merit in petitioner’s further contention that § 7237(d) is unconstitutional as a denial of equal protection of the laws, or other civil rights, or cruel and unusual punishment to persons convicted under that statute as contrasted with persons convicted of other offenses who may be eligible for parole. Stewart v. United States, 8 Cir., 1964, 325 F. 2d 745, 746, and cases there cited.
The order of the District Court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Ross, 464 F.2d 376 (2d Cir. 1972)
-
United States v. Fiore, 467 F.2d 86 (2d Cir. 1972)
-
United States v. Barrington Williams, 442 F.2d 738 (D.C. Cir. 1970)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Daugherty, 269 U.S. 360 (U.S. 1926)
- Perrin Stewart v. United States, 325 F.2d 745 (8th Cir. 1964)