Forrester v. United States
Decision Date | 25 February 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 71-2569. Summary Calendar.,71-2569. Summary Calendar. |
Citation | 456 F.2d 905 |
Parties | Donald Lee FORRESTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Donald L. Forrester, pro se.
William J. Schloth, U. S. Atty., Charles T. Erion, Asst. U. S. Atty., Macon, Ga., for respondent-appellee.
Before WISDOM, COLEMAN and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
Donald Lee Forrester, proceeding pro se, filed a motion in the district court to vacate a sentence1 rendered upon his convictions for violations of the Federal Bank Robbery Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2113. The court below held that he was entitled to no relief. We agree and affirm.
After trial by jury, Forrester was convicted of taking money from a federally insured bank by force and intimidation of one of its employees, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a); assaulting certain bank employees by the use of a dangerous weapon while committing the bank robbery, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d); and avoiding or attempting to avoid apprehension for the commission of the above-mentioned offenses by forcing a bank employee to accompany him without consent, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(e).2 Following the dictates of Prince v. United States, 1957, 352 U.S. 322, 77 S.Ct. 403, 1 L.Ed.2d 370, and its progeny, the trial court sentenced him to serve fifty years under § 2113(e); and treating his convictions under §§ 2113(a) and 2113(d) as surplusage, imposed no sentences thereon.
See also Matlock v. United States, W.D. Tenn.1970, 309 F.Supp. 398, 401. Because there is no inconsistency between conviction under § 2113(a) robbery, § 2113(d) assault with dangerous weapon in course of robbery, and § 2113(e) killing or forcing any person to accompany in course of committing or avoiding apprehension for robbery, Forrester's appeal based on Milanovich and Thomas has no merit.
Forrester also argues that the trial court erred when it treated the jury's verdicts of guilty upon the counts charging violations of § 2113(a) and (d) as surplusage, and sentenced him only upon his conviction on the count charging a violation of § 2113(e). He reasons that his convictions under (a) and (d) were constructively set aside by that action, and argues that proof of one of these violations was an essential element to his conviction under (e). He concludes that his sentence and conviction under the latter subsection are therefore void.
This contention lacks merit since it is based on the false assumption that the court's failure to sentence him under § 2113(a) and (d) amounted to a constructive acquittal of those counts. By sentencing Forrester under § 2113(e) only, the trial court was merely complying with the plethora of cases prohibiting the pyramiding of sentences for overlapping offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 2113. As this Court recently held in Thomas v. United States, 5 Cir. 1971, 450 F.2d 317,
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Forrester raises two contentions on this petition for rehearing. Neither contention persuades us that we must reverse our decision affirming the district court's denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of Forrester's motion to set aside and vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
First, Forrester objects to the failure of the district court to provide him with an evidentiary hearing on his § 2255 motion. § 2255...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sosa v. U.S.
...Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of Law 1156-57, 1200, 1220-21, 1414-15 (1958).3 E. g., Forrester v. United States, 456 F.2d 905 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. denied 409 U.S. 856, 93 S.Ct. 136, 34 L.Ed.2d 101; Finley v. United States, 296 F.2d 238 (5th Cir. 1961) (per cu......
-
U.S. v. Pungitore
...are not cognizable on habeas corpus petitions. See Houser v. United States, 508 F.2d 509, 515 (8th Cir.1974); Forrester v. United States, 456 F.2d 905, 907 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 856, 93 S.Ct. 136, 34 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972); United States v. Osborn, 415 F.2d 1021, 1024 (6th Cir.1969......
-
United States v. Faleafine
...do not give rise to a separate offense; Sullivan v. United States, 5 Cir., 1973, 485 F.2d 1352 type 2 circumstances; Forrester v. United States, 5 Cir., 1972, 456 F.2d 905, type 2 circumstances; Simunov v. United States, 6 Cir., 1947, 162 F.2d 314, type 2 circumstances. The following cases ......
-
United States v. Hamilton
...not entitled to relief on her sufficiency of the evidence claim because such claims are not cognizable under § 2255. United States v. Forrester, 456 F.2d 905, 907 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 856 (1972); United States v. Garcia, 68 F.3d 466 (5th Cir. 1995). Upon this record, the Gover......