Flores v. United States, 15171.
| Decision Date | 04 December 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 15171.,15171. |
| Citation | 238 F.2d 758 |
| Parties | Jesse FLORES and Carmen Flores, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Jesse Flores, in pro. per.
Lloyd H. Burke, U. S. Atty., Richard H. Foster, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before STEPHENS, BARNES, and HAMLEY, Circuit Judges.
On January 24, 1956, Jesse Flores was tried and convicted, on six counts, of violating various provisions of the narcotics and conspiracy laws of the United States. His wife, Carmen, was at the same time convicted on four such counts. Jesse was sentenced to ten years imprisonment and one dollar fine on each count. His terms of imprisonment were so arranged, as to concurrent and consecutive serving, that he received a total prison sentence of thirty years. Carmen received like sentences on the four counts of which she was convicted. In her case, the terms of imprisonment were so arranged, as to concurrent and consecutive serving, that she received a total prison sentence of twenty years. Neither defendant appealed.
On March 19, 1956, counsel for defendants filed in the district court a motion to modify the judgments. This motion was made on the ground that "the ends of justice would be served" by reducing in whole or in part the terms of imprisonment imposed by the court. In a supporting affidavit, various mitigating circumstances were set out, in an effort to persuade the trial court that the sentences should be reduced. A letter dated March 20, 1956, from Jesse Flores to the trial court, in effect presented the same arguments as advanced in the formal motion, and asked for the same relief.
The letter, but not the formal motion, made reference to that part of Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., which provides that the court may, within certain time limits, reduce a sentence. Neither the letter nor the motion expressly invoked 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, authorizing motions to vacate, set aside, or correct sentences.
The trial court denied the two motions. Defendants appeal from the orders denying these motions.
We will regard this as a proceeding under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. Appellants' motion, filed in this court, that appellants be produced in court at the time of the argument on this appeal, so that they may participate therein, and that they be provided with counsel at public expense, is denied.
In their motions for reduction of sentence, appellants presented...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leach v. United States, 18198.
...1960); Roth v. United States, 255 F.2d 440 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 819, 79 S.Ct. 31, 3 L.Ed. 2d 61 (1958); Flores v. United States, 238 F.2d 758 (9th Cir. 1956); Brown v. United States, 222 F.2d 293 (9th Cir. 1955); United States v. Rosenberg, 195 F.2d 583, 604 (2d Cir.), cert. de......
-
Bowman v. United States
...F.2d 867; Pependrea v. United States, 9 Cir., 1960, 275 F.2d 325; Bryson v. United States, 9 Cir., 1959, 265 F.2d 9; Flores v. United States, 9 Cir., 1956, 238 F.2d 758; Brown v. United States, 9 Cir., 1955, 222 F.2d 293; Berg v. United States, 9 Cir., 1949, 176 F.2d 122; Biren v. United St......
-
Higby v. State
...Poole v. United States, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 71, 250 F.2d 396, 401.5 McCartney v. United States, 9 Cir., 382 F.2d 116, 118; Flores v. United States, 9 Cir., 238 F.2d 758, 760; 2 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 586 (1969).6 Preliminary hearing was conducted April 1, 1970, and the justic......
-
Smith v. United States
...meted out to appellant was concededly within the range specified by the applicable statute, and is beyond our control. Flores v. United States, 238 F.2d 758 (9 Cir. 1956); Granger v. United States, 275 F.2d 127 (5 Cir. 1960); Jones v. United States, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 169, 327 F.2d 867, 869-8......