United States v. Kanton, 15565.
| Decision Date | 09 June 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 15565.,15565. |
| Citation | 362 F.2d 178 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alphonse KANTON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Alphonse Kanton, for appellant.
Edward V. Hanrahan, U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for appellee, John Peter Lulinski, Lawrence Jay Weiner, Lawrence T. Stanner, Asst. U. S. Attys., of counsel.
Before DUFFY, CASTLE and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges.
On May 8, 1958, defendant Kanton was indicted on two counts charging violation of Title 18 U.S.C., § 2113. The Government elected to proceed on count 1 which charged that defendant and two others had put in jeopardy the life of an employee of the federally-insured Riverside Savings & Loan Association by the use of firearms, and had robbed that institution of $1,716.50. Kanton was tried separately and was convicted. On appeal to this Court, the conviction was affirmed in United States of America v. Kanton, 7 Cir., 264 F.2d 588 (1959).
Prior to his trial in the District Court, Kanton had been incarcerated in the Cook County, Illinois jail while awaiting trial on a state charge. He was produced for trial in the Federal District Court pursuant to writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. After the trial, conviction and sentence in the District Court, he was returned to the state authorities.
On October 7, 1958, in an Illinois state court, Kanton was convicted and received a sentence of one year and one day. On September 7, 1959, defendant was released by the State Prison authorities and was immediately taken into custody by the United States Marshal, and transported to the federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. The officials at that prison entered on his record that his federal sentence of twenty-five years began to run on September 7, 1959, the day he had been released by the Illinois prison authorities.
Defendant now appeals from the denial of his second Rule 35 motion.1 Defendant contends that his federal court sentence should have commenced to run from the date of imposition of the sentence, to-wit: June 26, 1958.
Title 18 U.S.C., § 3568 provides, inter alia, that the sentence of imprisonment:
The defendant was properly returned to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Seale
...Marshal assumed custody over him at his place of detention to await transportation to the federal penitentiary." United States v. Kanton, 362 F.2d 178, 179-180 (7th Cir. 1966), certiorari denied, 386 U.S. 986, 87 S.Ct. 1298, 18 L.Ed.2d 239. No clear intent to have the federal sentence begin......
-
Setser v. United States
...1969)(per curiam); United States ex rel. Lester v. Parker, 404 F.2d 40, 41–42 (C.A.3 1968)(per curiam); United States v. Kanton, 362 F.2d 178, 179–180 (C.A.7 1966)(per curiam); but see United States v. Eastman, 758 F.2d 1315, 1317 (C.A.9 1985)2 . We find nothing in the Sentencing Reform Act......
-
Peterson v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Services
...by Federal authorities after imposition of sentence (e.g., United States v. Huss, 520 F.2d 598, 602 [2 Cir.1975]; United States v. Kanton, 362 F.2d 178, 179-180 (7th Cir.1966); Gunton v. Squier, 185 F.2d 470, 471 (9th Cir.1950); Murphy v. Nelson, 443 F.Supp. 645, The importance of this dist......
-
U.S. v. Avery
...1989, when defendant was released by the state and the United States Marshal was able to assume custody over her. United States v. Kanton, 362 F.2d 178, 179 (7th Cir.1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 986 (1967); Holleman v. United States, 612 F.Supp. 384, 386 Defendant next argues that she shou......