Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Clifford Charles Seib, Jr., 19526_1 (1971)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Number: 19526_1 Visitors: 12
Filed: Mar. 24, 1971
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 439 F.2d 1135 UNITED STATES of America v. Clifford Charles SEIB, Jr., Appellant. No. 19526. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued March 5, 1971. Decided March 24, 1971. Thomas M. Maher, Hackensack, N. J., for appellant. William Maurice Treadwell, Asst. U. S. Atty., Newark N. J. (Frederick B. Lacey, U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J., Stephen E. King, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee. Before HASTIE, Chief Judge, and ADAMS and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges. OPINION OF THE COURT PER
More

439 F.2d 1135

UNITED STATES of America
v.
Clifford Charles SEIB, Jr., Appellant.

No. 19526.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued March 5, 1971.

Decided March 24, 1971.

Thomas M. Maher, Hackensack, N. J., for appellant.

William Maurice Treadwell, Asst. U. S. Atty., Newark N. J. (Frederick B. Lacey, U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J., Stephen E. King, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.

Before HASTIE, Chief Judge, and ADAMS and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

1

Prior to the 1966 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3568 the appellant was sentenced, following a guilty plea, to seven years imprisonment for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b). The maximum sentence for that offense is ten years. On September 18, 1970 he moved before the sentencing judge pursuant to Rule 35, Fed.R.Crim.P. for reduction or correction of his sentence to reflect credit for 74 days spent in custody prior to the imposition of sentence. That motion was denied and this appeal followed. The precise situation has heretofore been presented in Amato v. United States, 374 F.2d 36 (3 Cir. 1967), which held that denial of a motion to reduce a pre-1966 sentence of less than the maximum by crediting time in pre-sentence custody was not error.1

2

The order of the district court will be affirmed.

Notes:

1

Accord, United States v. Whitfield, 411 F.2d 545 (8 Cir. 1969); Schreter v. United States, 265 F. Supp. 369 (D.N.J. 1967). Contra, United States v. Smith, 379 F.2d 628 (7 Cir. 1967). Cf. Sobell v. United States, 407 F.2d 180 (2 Cir. 1969); Lee v. United States, 400 F.2d 185 (9 Cir. 1968); United States v. Jones, 393 F.2d 728 (6 Cir. 1968); Bryans v. Blackwell, 387 F.2d 764 (5 Cir. 1967); Dunn v. United States, 376 F.2d 191 (4 Cir. 1967); Stapf v. United States, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 100, 367 F.2d 326 (1966)

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer