U.S. v. Gamboa-Cano, GAMBOA-CAN
| Citation | 510 F.2d 598 |
| Decision Date | 31 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--2652,D,GAMBOA-CAN,74--2652 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvaroefendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Victor R. Arditti, El Paso, Tex. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.
William S. Sessions, U.S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., Ronald Ederer, Asst. U.S. Atty., El Paso, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Before GEWIN, AINSWORTH and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
We have considered the several assignments of error by appellant in this case relating to the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the jury's verdict of guilty, to the asserted involuntariness of the defendant's confession, to the conduct of the judge during the trial as having been prejudicial to the defendant, and to the alleged failure of the trial judge to comply with the principle of Dorszynski v. United States, 418 U.S. 424, 94 S.Ct. 3042, 41 L.Ed.2d 855 (1974), relative to the necessity of an explicit finding that defendant would not benefit from sentencing under the Youth Corrections Act.
After a careful review of the record, we find the assignments of error to be without merit. We also hold that since the defendant herein is over the age of 22, a young adult offender, the sentencing judge was not required to make explicit findings that the defendant would not benefit from the Youth Corrections Act (18 U.S.C. § 4209).
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Rodriguez
...F.2d 368; Mitchell v. United States, 5 Cir. 1977, 547 F.2d 875; United States v. Brown, 5 Cir. 1975, 522 F.2d 207; United States v. Gamboa-Cano, 5 Cir. 1975, 510 F.2d 598. See also Dorszynski v. United States, 1974, 418 U.S. 424, 444, 94 S.Ct. 3042, 3053, 41 L.Ed.2d Appellants complain of a......
- U.S. v. Ballard
-
U.S. v. Garrison, 75--1551
...of 18 U.S.C. § 4209 and, as such, was not entitled to an explicit 'no benefit' finding under 18 U.S.C. § 5010. United States v. Gambo-Cano, 510 F.2d 598 (5th Cir. 1975); Roddy v. United States, 509 F.2d 1145, 1147 (10th Cir. 1975); United States v. McDonald, 156 U.S.App.D.C. 338, 481 F.2d 5......
-
U.S. v. McGough
... ... 2 Thus we have before us only the narrow preliminary question of whether materiality was sufficiently alleged in the ... ...