Green v. United States, 71-1916.
| Decision Date | 20 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1916.,71-1916. |
| Citation | 447 F.2d 987 |
| Parties | Jerry Henry GREEN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Jerry H. Green, in pro. per.
Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., David R. Nissen, Chief, Crim. Div., John Newman, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before CARTER, KILKENNY and CHOY, Circuit Judges.
Appellant was convicted on five counts of an indictment charging violations of 21 U.S.C. § 174 sale of narcotics and conspiracy. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Green v. United States, 282 F.2d 388 (9th Cir. 1960). Here, he appeals from a denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 application, 324 F.Supp. 321. We affirm.
The sole issue presented is whether there was an impermissible variance between the sentence as announced from the Bench, and the judgment of commitment and sentence entered on the same day.
Although the court's oral pronouncement seems to be somewhat ambiguous, when read as a whole it does reflect the court's intention to impose a total sentence of twenty years. There is no ambiguity whatsoever about the written judgment of commitment and sentence. That the sentence in writing should be referred to in order to resolve ambiguities in the oral pronouncement is well settled. Baca v. United States, 383 F.2d 154, 157 (10th Cir. 1967); Chapman v. United States, 289 F.2d 539, 544 (5th Cir. 1961); Payne v. Madigan, 274 F.2d 702 (9th Cir. 1960). Viewed in the light of the preciseness of the written sentence, the ambiguity, if any, in the oral pronouncement completely disappears. The same thing can be said of the alleged variance.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Garcia
...where there are ambiguities in the oral pronouncement of the sentence, and the writing resolves the ambiguity. Green v. United States, 447 F.2d 987, 987 (9th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 976, 92 S.Ct. 1201, 31 L.Ed.2d 250 Here, the oral pronouncement is ambiguous regarding whether Garc......
-
Davis v. United States
..."the sentence in writing should be referred to in order to resolve the ambiguities in the oral pronouncement . . ." Green v. United States, 447 F.2d 987, 987 (9th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 976, 92 S.Ct. 1201, 31 L.Ed.2d 250 (1972). According to the Judgment and Commitment Order, th......
-
State v. Sorenson
...that a written sentence should be referred to in order to resolve the ambiguities in the oral pronouncement) (citing Green v. United States, 447 F.2d 987 (9th Cir.1971), cert. denied 405 U.S. 976, 92 S.Ct. 1201, 31 L.Ed.2d 250 (1972)). See, also, People v. Horobecki, 48 Ill.App.3d 598, 363 ......
-
United States v. Cleary
...unambiguous written judgment controls." Fenner v. U.S. Parole Com'n, 251 F.3d 782, 787 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Green v. United States, 447 F.2d 987, 987 (9th Cir. 1971) ("That the sentence in writing should be referred to in order to resolve ambiguities in the oral pronouncement is well s......