Johnstone v. United States
| Decision Date | 04 December 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 28038.,28038. |
| Parties | Kenneth Earl JOHNSTONE, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondents-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Kenneth Earl Johnstone, Jr., pro se.
Edward F. Boardman, U. S. Atty., Joseph W. Hatchett, Asst. U. S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., for respondents-appellees.
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and THORNBERRY and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
In this pro se case appellant has failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, F.R.A.P., and it is therefore appropriate to dispose of this case summarily pursuant to Rule 9(c) (2) of this Court. Stout v. Broom, 5th Cir. 1969, 406 F.2d 758.
The appeal is taken from the order of the district court denying the motion to vacate sentence filed by a federal convict pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm.
Appellant was convicted of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 and of bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), and was sentenced to consecutive terms of five years and 10 years, respectively. He contends in his motion to vacate sentence that the conspiracy sentence is excessive, since he is being punished for the planning of the robbery as well as for the robbery itself. The district court properly denied relief.
It is a well settled principle that consecutive sentences may be imposed for the violation of a criminal statute and for conspiracy to violate it. Pereira v. United States, 1954, 347 U.S. 1, 74 S.Ct. 358, 98 L.Ed. 435; Pinkerton v. United States, 1946, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489; Sanders v. United States, 5th Cir. 1969, 415 F.2d 621; Meyers v. United States, 5th Cir. 1958, 260 F.2d 956, cert. denied 359 U.S. 975, 79 S.Ct. 893, 3 L.Ed.2d 841. This principle holds true unless the contrary is specified by the statute defining the specific offense involved. Pegram v. United States, 8th Cir. 1966, 361 F.2d 820. Section 2113, Title 18 U.S.C. does not preclude a consecutive sentence for conspiracy. The judgment below is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Ashdown
...7 Cir. 1971, 439 F.2d 351, 359; see also Pereira v. United States, 1954, 347 U.S. 1, 11, 74 S.Ct. 358, 98 L.Ed. 435; Johnstone v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 418 F.2d 1094; Milam v. United States, 5 Cir. 1963, 322 F.2d 104, V. OTHER ERRORS Defendants challenge the court's failure to instruc......
-
United States v. Bennett, 71-518-Cr-JLK.
...to stand. U. S. v. Vasquez, 5th Cir. 1974, 504 F.2d 555, 556; U. S. v. Cheers, 5th Cir. 1971, 439 F.2d 1097, 1098; Johnstone v. U. S., 5th Cir. 1969, 418 F.2d 1094. Petitioner moves to correct the sentence on the theory that sentence may only be imposed for subsection (e) of § 2113, because......
-
U.S. v. Nims
...merge with the substantive offense. Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946); Johnstone v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969,418 F.2d 1094. This is so even if several of the defendants are alleged to have aided and abetted one another in the commission of the ......
-
United States v. Cheers, 30196 Summary Calendar.
...are charged, we have held that separate consecutive sentences may be imposed in each without double jeopardy. Johnstone v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 418 F.2d 1094. This is true even where the "overt acts charged in the conspiracy counts were also charged and proved as substantive offenses......