Sengstack v. Hill, 87.
Decision Date | 01 September 1936 |
Docket Number | No. 87.,87. |
Citation | 16 F. Supp. 61 |
Parties | SENGSTACK v. HILL, Warden. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Cornelius P. Mundy, of Baltimore, Md., for petitioner.
T. Barton Harrington, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Baltimore, Md., and Herman F. Reich, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Sunbury, Pa., for respondent.
A writ of habeas corpus was issued on a petition of Warren Sengstack, an inmate of the United States Northeastern Penitentiary.
The petitioner was sentenced by the District Court of the United States for the District of Maryland as follows: "The sentence of the Court is two years in the penitentiary and a fine of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.) and commitment in default of the payment of the fine."
The commitment issued by the clerk was in the following language: * * *"
The petitioner contends that the court, in sentencing him to two years in a penitentiary, did not commit him to the custody of the Attorney General, and since the clerk issuing the commitment inserted therein, without authority, that petitioner had been committed to the custody of the Attorney General, the act of the Attorney General in confining him to the Penitentiary at Lewisburg is illegal under the Act of May 14, 1930, c. 274, § 7, 18 U.S.C. 753f (18 U.S.C.A. § 753f).
The substance of a sentence consists in the kind and amount of punishment; under the statute the place of execution is no part of the judicial sentence. Ex parte Givins (D.C.) 262 F. 702; Bernstein v. United States (C.C.A.) 254 F. 967, 3 A.L. R. 1569; Fels v. Snook (D.C.) 30 F.(2d) 187; Wall v. Aderhold, Warden (D.C.) 51 F.(2d) 714. The law provides for the place of imprisonment by the designation of the Attorney General. Aderhold, Warden, v. Edwards (C.C.A.) 71 F.(2d) 297. An order respecting the time or place of execution of a sentence is not a judicial, but a ministerial, act. Bernstein v. United States, supra.
A warrant of commitment is a final process for carrying into effect the judgment. It is predicated on the judgment; it must be in substantial accord therewith, and cannot vary or contradict the judgment. Biddle, Warden, v. Shirley 16 F.(2d) 566. It is void when it departs in matters of substance from the judgment back of it. Hill v. United States ex rel. Wampler (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fisher v. Carroll
...may be changed after the term expires." Bernstein v. U.S., 254 F. 967, 968 (4th Cir.1918)(collecting cases); see also Sengstack v. Hill, 16 F.Supp. 61, 62 (M.D.Pa.1936) (an order's statement regarding the time or place of executing a sentence is a ministerial In the instant case, when Petit......
-
United States v. Wright, Criminal No. 11032.
...a routine ministerial act which probably could have been performed by the clerk. United States v. Ing, D.C., 8 F.Supp. 471; Sengstack v. Hill, D.C., 16 F. Supp. 61; Aderhold v. Edwards, 5 Cir., 71 F.2d 297; Aderhold v. McCarthy, 5 Cir., 65 F.2d 452; Howard v. United States, 6 Cir., 75 F. 98......
-
Bateman v. United States
...v. Edwards, 5 Cir., 1934, 71 F.2d 297; United States ex rel. Anagnosti v. Hill, D.C.M.D.Pa.1938, 24 F.Supp. 53; Sengstack v. Hill, D.C.M.D. Pa.1936, 16 F.Supp. 61. We, therefore, find that the appellant is not entitled to the relief Affirmed. ...
- Greer v. Erickson