United States v. Hill, 5592.
| Decision Date | 06 December 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 5592.,5592. |
| Citation | 74 F.2d 822 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. BROWN v. HILL, Warden. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Robert Brown, pro se.
Frank J. McDonnell, U. S. Atty., of Scranton, Pa., and Herman F. Reich, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Sunbury, Pa., for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Robert Brown was indicted, tried, and convicted in the district of New Jersey for passing and possessing counterfeit bills. On December 8, 1932, the court imposed a sentence that he "be committed for the term of five years in a Federal Penitentiary * * *, term to commence October 15, 1932." He was promptly committed and thereupon began serving his sentence.
It is clear from the words of the sentence that the term of imprisonment was five years. It is equally clear that, in fixing the date for commencement of the term prior to the date of sentence, the learned trial judge intended to give the prisoner the benefit of the time he had been imprisoned before conviction. Later, when at the next term of court, namely, on February 14, 1933, his attention was called to the then recent Act of June 29, 1932 (18 U. S. C. § 709a 18 USCA § 709a), which provides specifically and exclusively that a "sentence of imprisonment of any person convicted of a crime in a court of the United States shall commence to run from the date on which such person is received at the penitentiary * * * for service of said sentence," the judge amended the five-year sentence to one of four years three hundred and ten days, to run, presumably, from the date of the amendment. This new term of imprisonment was in effect a five-year term from the date of commitment (as provided by the statute) less the period of imprisonment after the date of commitment, the benefit of which the learned court tried to give the prisoner.
The prisoner, conceiving that the first sentence was wholly invalid because it stated a date for the commencement of the term otherwise than as provided by the Act of June 29, 1932, and contending that the amendment of the sentence was in legal effect a new sentence imposed after the term at which he was first sentenced, and imposed in his absence, and therefore invalid, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which the learned judge, in the Middle district of Pennsylvania, to whom it was addressed, dismissed. The appeal is from the order of dismissal.
We are constrained to hold that the commitment under the sentence of December 8, 1932, was valid, and therefore the relator is in lawful custody. The court had jurisdiction of the case and of the prisoner and jurisdiction to impose the five-year term of imprisonment which was within the punishment prescribed by the statute under which the prisoner was tried, convicted, and committed. It follows the sentence of imprisonment for five years was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Wright, Criminal No. 11032.
...129; United States v. Capone, 7 Cir., 93 F.2d 840, certiorari denied 303 U.S. 651, 58 S.Ct. 750, 82 L.Ed. 1112; United States ex rel. Brown v. Hill, 3 Cir., 74 F.2d 822; United States ex rel. Poch v. Hill, 3 Cir., 71 F.2d 906, certiorari denied 293 U.S. 597, 55 S.Ct. 120, 79 L.Ed. 690; Unit......
-
Munoz v. Porto Rico Ry., Light & Power Co.
... ... a controversy between citizens or subjects of a foreign state or states, or citizens of states, territories, or districts, not domiciled in Puerto ... it does not involve an interpretation of the Constitution of the United States or any law enacted by the Congress of the United States; (3) that ... ...
-
Bateman v. United States
...nothing more than surplusage. Bugg v. United States, 8 Cir., 1944, 140 F.2d 848, 851-852." 261 F.2d at page 40. United States ex rel. Brown v. Hill, 3 Cir., 1934, 74 F.2d 822, involved a sentence ordered, in clear violation of the statute, to commence some two months prior to the date of ju......
-
Kunkle v. Claudy, 275.
...Ed.) §§ 753h and 909 now 18 U.S.C. § 751; (2) the limitations on the power of the court in 18 U.S.C. § 3568; (3) United States ex rel. Brown v. Hill, 3 Cir., 74 F.2d 822; Tippitt v. Wood, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 332, 140 F.2d 3 Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 70 S.Ct. 587, 94 L.Ed. 761; United State......