Tinin v. United States, 8509.

Decision Date08 June 1966
Docket NumberNo. 8509.,8509.
Citation361 F.2d 829
PartiesJohn Lee TININ, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Gerald T. Elliott, Kansas City, Kan., for appellant.

Thomas E. Joyce, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.

Before BREITENSTEIN and HILL, Circuit Judges, and LANGLEY, District Judge.

BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from the denial of a motion under Rule 35, F.R.Crim.P., for correction of sentence. After his plea of guilty to a violation of the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2312, prisoner was sentenced on November 25, 1961, over his protest, under the Federal Youth Correction Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5005 et seq., for an indeterminate period with a potential maximum of six years. In a Section 2255 proceedings the sentence was vacated on authority of our decision in Chapin v. United States, 10 Cir., 341 F.2d 900, and on September 22, 1965, he was resentenced to a five-year term, the maximum permissible under 18 U.S.C. § 2312. The judgment and commitment provided for determination of parole eligibility under 18 U.S.C. § 4208(a) (2) and recommended to the Board of Parole and the Bureau of Prisons that consideration be given for the time served under the vacated sentence imposed on November 25, 1961.

The prisoner contends that the second sentence is erroneous because it requires him to serve in the aggregate more than the statutory maximum time for a single offense violation of § 2312. The point is well taken. See Short v. United States, D.C.Cir., 344 F.2d 550, 553. Cf. Cook v. United States, 1 Cir., 171 F.2d 567, 570, certiorari denied 336 U.S. 926, 69 S.Ct. 647, 93 L.Ed. 1088. Our decision in Meyers v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 160 F.2d 344, certiorari denied 331 U.S. 852, 67 S.Ct. 1730, 91 L.Ed. 1860, is not to the contrary. That was a habeas corpus case in which the court held that habeas relief could not be substituted for a direct attack on an erroneous judgment in a criminal case. Here we have a direct attack under Rule 35 in the original criminal case. The statements in Meyers relating to the start of a criminal sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 709a, now 18 U.S.C. § 3568, have no relationship to the problem of length of sentence with which we are now concerned. We find no statute either authorizing or precluding credit against the maximum sentence for imprisonment prior to resentencing for the same offense. An error in the original sentence does not require the prisoner, on resentencing to serve more than the statutory maximum for the offense.

The prisoner also contends that on resentence he should have credit for the good conduct time earned under 18 U.S.C. § 4161 while serving the original sentence. Such earned good conduct time is subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 4165. No showing was made to the court below as to the amount of such time. In the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Desmond v. United States Board of Parole, 7009.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • October 21, 1968
    ...of imprisonment a prisoner commits any offense * * * all or any part of his earned good time may be forfeited." See Tinin v. United States, 361 F.2d 829 (10th Cir.1966); Urban v. Settle, 298 F.2d 592 (8th Cir.1962); Frierson v. Rogers, 289 F.2d 234 (5th Cir.1961). Even when a prisoner has f......
  • Harper v. United States, 8498.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • October 27, 1966
    ...March 24, 1964, the date of the imposition of Harper's original sentence under the Federal Youth Corrections Act. See Tinin v. United States, 10 Cir., 361 F.2d 829. ÀReversed and remanded, with instructions to vacate the sentence imposed under § 2312, supra; grant Harper an evidentiary hear......
  • Benson v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • December 13, 1968
    ...later than under the original sentence. Such, in effect, increase of sentence by deprivation of good time was error. Tinin v. United States, 10 Cir., 1966, 361 F.2d 829; see Walker v. United States, 5 Cir., 1968, 388 F.2d 605; 18 U.S.C. § 4161, Realizing this inequity, the court two months ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT