Jacobsen v. United States, 16002
| Decision Date | 17 October 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 16002,16006.,16002 |
| Citation | 260 F.2d 122 |
| Parties | Jacob N. JACOBSEN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Russell C. ICKES, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Richard C. Turner, Council Bluffs, Iowa (G. O. Hurley, Harlan, Iowa, was with him on the brief), for appellants.
Roy L. Stephenson, U. S. Atty., Des Moines, Iowa (John C. Stevens, and Richard J. Wells, Asst. U. S. Attys., Des Moines, Iowa, were with him on the brief), for appellee.
Before SANBORN, JOHNSEN and VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judges.
These are separate appeals by defendants, each of whom was charged by indictment with having carried on, in the Southern District of Iowa, the business of a retail liquor dealer, and having willfully failed to pay the special tax required by law, a federal offense under 26 U.S.C. § 5691. Both indictments were returned on March 12, 1958. The defendants, each represented by counsel of his own choice, were arraigned at the same time and place on April 7, 1958. Each defendant asked leave to enter a plea of nolo contendere. The United States Attorney objected. The pleas were accepted and entered after the court had ascertained from each defendant that he fully understood the effect of the plea, the charge against him, and the maximum sentence that could be imposed. The United States Attorney, after each of the defendants had announced his readiness to be sentenced, gave to the court such information as he had respecting the separate offenses and offenders. Counsel for the defendants then made statements on their behalf, which were, generally, to the effect that the failure to pay the federal tax for the period referred to in the indictment was due to "the policy of the State of Iowa to enforce much more strictly than formerly the laws against the retail sale of liquor and the keeping of liquor where beer is sold." After counsel for each of the defendants had spoken, the court made some disparaging remarks about state liquor law violators, and imposed upon each of the defendants a sentence of one year's imprisonment.
On April 12, 1958, each defendant filed a motion, under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C., to reduce his sentence and "to hear evidence, testimony of character witnesses and further arguments of defendant's attorney in connection with the severity of the punishment for defendant's crime."
On April 14, 1958, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. U.S.
...the discretion of the District Court, and we will not disturb the District Court's denial of relief under Rule 35. Jacobsen v. United States, 260 F.2d 122, 123 (8th Cir. 1958). Also, relief under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35, part of which allows for the correction of an illegal sentence at any time, i......
-
Teague v. State
...insofar as the purposes of the case are concerned." Bell v. Commissioner, 320 F.2d 953, 956 (8th Cir.1963). See Jacobsen v. United States, 260 F.2d 122, 123 (8th Cir.1958). The only difference of substance is that a conviction following the entry of a plea of nolo contendere cannot be used ......
-
Janko v. United States
...review here. Holmes v. United States, 8 Cir., 115 F. 2d 528, 529; Affronti v. United States, 8 Cir., 145 F.2d 3, 10; Jacobsen v. United States, 8 Cir., 260 F.2d 122, 123; see Carlson v. United States, 8 Cir., 274 F. 2d 694, The second contention rests upon the same arguments advanced relati......
-
United States v. Hamilton
...Lee v. United States, 501 F.2d 494, 501 (8th Cir. 1974); United States v. Jones, 490 F.2d 207, 208 (6th Cir. 1974); Jacobsen v. United States, 260 F.2d 122 (8th Cir. 1958). A careful review of the record and the defendant's contentions does not disclose any new information, material facts o......