McGaughey v. U.S., No. 78-1299
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before BRIGHT and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE; PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 596 F.2d 796 |
| Parties | Donald Eugene McGAUGHEY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 11 April 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1299 |
Page 796
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Eighth Circuit.
Decided April 11, 1979.
Page 797
Ronald L. Hall, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant; David R. Freeman, Federal Public Defender, Kansas City, Mo., on brief.
J. Whitfield Moody, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for appellee; Ronald S. Reed, Jr., U. S. Atty., and Frederick O. Griffin, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., on brief.
Joseph A. Barry, Gen. Counsel, and David C. Shipman, Atty., U. S. Parole Commission, Washington, D. C., amicus curiae, U. S. Parole Commission.
Donald Eugene McGaughey, pro se.
Before BRIGHT and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE, District Judge. *
PER CURIAM.
Donald Eugene McGaughey appeals from the dismissal of his petition to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1976). McGaughey contends that the action of the district court in revoking probation on one of four concurrent sentences of probation operated to revoke probation on all of those sentences. Therefore, argues McGaughey, the district court acted improperly in subsequently revoking probation on the other three probationary terms and imposing a prison term upon McGaughey. The district court 1 rejected this contention. McGaughey v. United States, 467 F.Supp. 1 (W.D.Mo. 1978). We affirm.
We briefly relate the background. In September 1969, McGaughey entered guilty pleas in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska to indictments charging him with multiple counts of forgery, conspiracy, and uttering false government securities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 495, 2314. The court sentenced McGaughey to concurrent five-year terms of imprisonment on several counts. On the four counts material here, the court imposed separate sentences of five years' probation, to be served concurrently following McGaughey's release from imprisonment under the other sentences already mentioned.
On December 1, 1972, upon his release from imprisonment, McGaughey began serving his four concurrent five-year terms of probation. In early 1975, the district court (Western District of Missouri) accepted a transfer of jurisdiction from the District of Nebraska over the four cases in which McGaughey had received probation. In January 1976, McGaughey was convicted in state court of conduct violating his federal probation conditions. On the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe v. State of SD, No. CIV 80-3046.
...The holding in Wounded Knee was that Congress did not intend the Big Bend Act, P.L. 87-735, to diminish the Crow Creek Reservation. 596 F.2d at 796. In order to determine congressional intent behind P.L. 87-735, however, this Court compared that Act to the Fort Randall Acts for both the Low......
-
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe v. State of S.D., Nos. 82-1635
...included.] There is simply nothing in the legislative history which satisfies this requirement. United States v. Wounded Knee, supra, 596 F.2d at 796 (footnote Moreover, the Big Bend Act's surrounding circumstances suggest that Congress did not intend to disestablish the Lower Brule Reserva......
-
United States v. Johnson, No. 16-3268
...why the district court could not have revoked one term of supervised release but not the other...."); McGaughey v. United States, 596 F.2d 796, 797–98 (8th Cir. 1979) (per curiam) (reaching a similar outcome in the context of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and via summary affirmance).6 467 F.3d 847,......
-
U.S. v. Gammarano, No. 02-1499.
...as a result of a separate conviction. See United States v. Alvarado, 201 F.3d 379, 381-82 (5th Cir.2000); cf. McGaughey v. United States, 596 F.2d 796, 798 (8th Cir.1979) (reaching the same conclusion with respect to concurrent terms of probation). Because the revocation of supervised relea......
-
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe v. State of SD, No. CIV 80-3046.
...The holding in Wounded Knee was that Congress did not intend the Big Bend Act, P.L. 87-735, to diminish the Crow Creek Reservation. 596 F.2d at 796. In order to determine congressional intent behind P.L. 87-735, however, this Court compared that Act to the Fort Randall Acts for both the Low......
-
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe v. State of S.D., Nos. 82-1635
...included.] There is simply nothing in the legislative history which satisfies this requirement. United States v. Wounded Knee, supra, 596 F.2d at 796 (footnote Moreover, the Big Bend Act's surrounding circumstances suggest that Congress did not intend to disestablish the Lower Brule Reserva......
-
United States v. Johnson, No. 16-3268
...why the district court could not have revoked one term of supervised release but not the other...."); McGaughey v. United States, 596 F.2d 796, 797–98 (8th Cir. 1979) (per curiam) (reaching a similar outcome in the context of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and via summary affirmance).6 467 F.3d 847,......
-
U.S. v. Gammarano, No. 02-1499.
...as a result of a separate conviction. See United States v. Alvarado, 201 F.3d 379, 381-82 (5th Cir.2000); cf. McGaughey v. United States, 596 F.2d 796, 798 (8th Cir.1979) (reaching the same conclusion with respect to concurrent terms of probation). Because the revocation of supervised relea......