United States v. Singletary, 30698 Summary Calendar.

Decision Date01 April 1971
Docket NumberNo. 30698 Summary Calendar.,30698 Summary Calendar.
Citation441 F.2d 333
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert A. SINGLETARY, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Floyd G. Yeager, Jacksonville, Fla., for defendant-appellant.

John L. Briggs, U. S. Atty., Harvey E. Schlesinger and Joseph W. Hatchett, Asst. U. S. Attys., Jacksonville, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before WISDOM, COLEMAN, and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Robert A. Singletary appeals from an order of the district court denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for modification and correction of his sentence. We affirm.

Singletary was charged in Counts I and II of a six-count indictment. Count I alleged a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 to commit two offenses against the United States. The first offense was receiving, concealing, and retaining stolen United States Postal money orders valued in excess of $100 with the intent to convert them to his own use, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. The second offense was falsely making forging, counterfeiting, passing, and uttering United States Postal money orders with the intent to defraud, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 500. Count II charged that the defendant did knowingly receive, conceal, and retain stolen United States Postal money orders with the intent to convert them to his own use, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. Singletary waived trial by jury and pleaded guilty to both the conspiracy and receiving and concealing counts. The district court sentenced him to serve two consecutive five-year terms in the custody of the Attorney General.

Some twenty months later — in September 1970 — Singletary filed a pro se motion in the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking reduction of the sentence imposed on the conspiracy count from five years to one year. The gist of Singletary's argument is this: the federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, provides that if the offense the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy is only a misdemeanor, the punishment for the conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for the misdemeanor. Singletary argues that the offenses alleged as the objects of the conspiracy in his case were only misdemeanors because Count I of the indictment did not allege that the value of the stolen money orders exceeded $100.1 In Singletary's view the district court, in accepting his plea of guilty, should have inquired further into the value of the stolen money orders. He argues that it was error for the court to assume that the value of the stolen money orders exceeded $100 and to sentence him accordingly. He concludes that for want of proof of a value in excess of $100 the sentence imposed on the conspiracy count should be reduced to one year, the maximum punishment allowed by 18 U.S.C. § 641 when the value of the stolen property does not exceed $100. Holding that the record affirmatively showed that the value of eleven of the stolen money orders exceeded $100, the district court denied the motion.

We have examined the briefs and the record and have found no error either in the district court's sentencing procedure or in Singletary's sentence. Before accepting Singletary's plea of guilty, the district court held a Rule 11 hearing.2 At the hearing the court inquired of Singletary personally whether he was entering his plea of guilty voluntarily and whether he understood the nature of the charges against him and the consequences of his plea of guilty. After the defendant responded affirmatively, the court listened to a report by a United States Postal Inspector summarizing the Government's evidence against Singletary. Then only after Singletary admitted the truth of the Postal Inspector's report did the court accept his plea of guilty. Having satisfied itself that there existed a factual basis for Singletary's plea of guilty, the district court was under no duty to inquire further into the facts of the case: a plea of guilty, if voluntarily and understandingly made, admits all the elements of the crime charged. Busby v. Holman, 5 Cir. 1966, 356 F.2d 75, 77...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • U.S. v. Di Fonzo
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 15 Octubre 1979
    ...all the factual allegations contained in the indictment. Coleman, supra, 155 U.S.App.D.C. at 308, 477 F.2d at 1193; United States v. Singletary, 441 F.2d 333 (5th Cir. 1971). As we said in United States v. Friedman, 416 F.2d 947, 949 (7th Cir. 1969), "In the absence of any factual determina......
  • State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Coleman
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 13 Abril 1971
    ... ... No. 29660 ... United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit ... April ... ...
  • Fromal v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Delaware
    • 21 Febrero 1979
    ...is commonly done when a Robinson plea is offered but its use is not necessarily limited to that circumstance. See United States v. Singletary, 5 Cir., 441 F.2d 333, 335 (1971). Third, the presentence report may provide the necessary factual basis. McCarthy v. United States, supra, 89 S.Ct. ......
  • Thompson v. United States, 72-1486 Summary Calendar.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 20 Julio 1972
    ...guilty. His plea admitted all of the averments of the information, including the value of the stolen property. See United States v. Singletary, 5th Cir. 1971, 441 F.2d 333; Gafford v. United States, 5th Cir. 1971, 438 F.2d 106; Rosecrans v. United States, 5th Cir. 1967, 378 F.2d 561. The or......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT