UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
DAVID T. HOLT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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 district court did not abuse its discretion by not holding a hearing on the Rule 35 motion for modification of sentence.
Appellant David T. Holt filed a Rule 35 motion for modification of sentence. The district court did not hold a hearing on the motion. Holt appealed, c…
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 Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The appellant, David T. Holt, contends that the district court was required to hold a hearing on his Rule 35 motion for modification of sentence. Fed.R.Crim.P. 35. The district court’s decision not to hold a hearing in a Rule 35 proceeding will be reversed only when the district court has abused its discretion, United States v. Krueger, 454 F. 2d 1154 (9th Cir.1972). Holt has demonstrated no such abuse. The motion and attached affidavits in this case made an ample record, and it does not appear from the appeal that any additional information would have been adduced at an oral hearing.
The case of United States v. Ginzburg, 398 F. 2d 52 (3d Cir.1969), is distinguishable, for there the applicable substantive law had changed after sentencing, and a hearing was deemed useful to present additional evidence that might have led to a modification of the sentence.
It may well have been that here, as in many other criminal proceedings, the sentencing phase of the case was the one of most importance to the defendant, and we would have been more comfortable with the matter had the hearing been held. Nevertheless, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. DeCOLOGERO, 821 F.2d 39 (1st Cir. 1987)
-
United States v. Gonzales, 765 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1985)
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Cliff Krueger, 454 F.2d 1154 (9th Cir. 1972)
- United States v. Ginzburg, 398 F.2d 52 (3d Cir. 1968)