United States v. Knupp

• Decision Date: 15 September 1971
• Docket Number: No. 13314.,13314.
• Citation: 448 F.2d 412
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jacob C. KNUPP, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

448 F.2d 412 (1971)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jacob C. KNUPP, Appellant.

No. 13314.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued October 8, 1970.

Decided September 15, 1971.

Plato Cacheris, Alexandria, Va. (Barry R. Poretz, Alexandria, Va., on the brief), for appellant.

Brian P. Gettings, U. S. Atty. (C. P. Montgomery, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BOREMAN, BRYAN, WINTER, CRAVEN, and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere before the United States District Court to the charge of filing false quarterly returns in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 7206(1). His case was referred to the probation officer for a presentence report. When the defendant later appeared for sentencing, his attorney sought a copy of that report, but the Court refused the request. The ensuing sentence of the Court was for two years; all except six months of this term was suspended. Appellant's sole contention of error on this appeal is that the District Court erred in withholding the presentence report from the defendant. For reasons set out below, we affirm.

This Court recently had before it in Baker v. United States, 4 Cir., 388 F.2d 931, the issue of disclosing a presentence report. The constitutional necessity for such a disclosure was there considered and dismissed. We see no reason to disturb that conclusion. Neither Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 68 S.Ct. 1252, 92 L.Ed. 1690; Greene v. McElroy, 360 U. S. 474, 79 S.Ct. 1400, 3 L.Ed.2d 1377, nor Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84 require that result. See United States v. Carden, 8 Cir., 428 F.2d 1116.

Rule 32(c) (2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure presently leaves the extent of disclosure to the discretion of the judge. The appellant urges this Court to exercise its supervisory powers to effectuate a more thorough disclosure practice throughout the circuit. This, however, is neither the proper case nor time for this Court to undertake a study, and attempt to weigh the values bearing upon the propriety of disclosing a presentence report.

At the time of sentencing there was apparent uncertainty by the judge concerning a former civil tax fraud suit involving the appellant. It is clear from the record, however, that the nature of that first suit was understood from the beginning by the sentencing judge. The appellant further contends that there might have been errors in the report, of which he is unaware, that influenced the judge adversely. This Court has reviewed the report but can find no detrimental material to which objection might have been made. There were no confidential disclosures or rehabilitative plans for which there could be a need of secrecy. There was, in fact, nothing in the report which need not have been freely disclosed to both appellant and his counsel. In such circumstances, disclosure, when requested, should be favored in order that the appearance of justice will be fostered with a resulting increase in respect for the administration of the law. Thus a swift conclusion would be reached in cases like the one at hand. Even when no...