Hamilton v. United States
| Decision Date | 03 June 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 6608.,6608. |
| Citation | 204 F.2d 927 |
| Parties | HAMILTON v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Wayman C. Hamilton, pro se.
A. Garnett Thompson, U. S. Atty., Charleston, W. Va., on brief, for appellee.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from the denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate or correct a sentence of imprisonment. Appellant complains of the sentence because under a plea of guilty entered to several counts of an indictment the court imposed a sentence longer than might have been imposed under any one of the counts but less than the aggregate of the sentences that might have been imposed under all of them. This was unquestionably proper. Neely v. United States, 4 Cir., 2 F.2d 849. While it is ordinarily desirable that sentence be imposed under each count of an indictment on which a conviction is had or plea of guilty is entered, the sentence here was evidently entered in the form that it was in view of the fact that a prior sentence which had been served in part had been set aside, and in order that the prisoner might not be required to serve a greater aggregate sentence than had originally been imposed. We note that this is the second appeal taken by this prisoner from denials of motion for the vacation of the sentence. See Hamilton v. United States, 4 Cir., 194 F.2d 1011. The District Court was not required to entertain a second motion to set aside the sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court did entertain the motion, however, and properly denied it.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bistram v. United States
...motion for relief even though it is based upon factual grounds not previously relied upon. The Fourth Circuit held in Hamilton v. United States, 1953, 204 F.2d 927, 928, that: "* * * We note that this is the second appeal taken by this prisoner from denials of motion for the vacation of the......
-
Davis v. United States, 13373.
...allowed by law for all the offenses of which the defendant is guilty. Jackson v. United States, 6 Cir., 234 F.2d 605; Hamilton v. United States, 4 Cir., 204 F.2d 927, 928, certiorari denied 346 U.S. 858, 74 S.Ct. 74, 98 L.Ed. 372; Levine v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 127 F.2d 982, 984, certiorari d......
-
United States v. Smith
...construction of statutes. The weight of authority applies the above mentioned provision of § 2255 as written. Thus, in Hamilton v. United States, 4 Cir., 204 F.2d 927, 928, the court stated that, "The District Court was not required to entertain a second motion to set aside the sentence". I......
-
Call v. United States
...to be served consecutively. Hart v. United States, 4 Cir., 258 F.2d 559; Marlette v. United States, 4 Cir., 249 F.2d 95; Hamilton v. United States, 4 Cir., 204 F. 2d 927; Neely v. United States, 4 Cir., 2 F.2d The appeal of the defendant Isaac Henry Call is more meritorious. Call was one of......