Wilkins v. United States
| Decision Date | 11 October 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 21930.,21930. |
| Citation | 351 F.2d 609 |
| Parties | Danny Burton WILKINS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Donald C. Lehman, William J. Hamilton, Asst. U. S. Attys., Jacksonville, Fla., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge, and CARSWELL, District Judge.
Appellant's contention that his judgment of commitment should be voided due to lack of clarity as to when his sentence begins and where it is to be served is without merit.
Here, as in Hayward v. Looney, 246 F.2d 56 (10th Cir., 1957), the sentence of the federal court made no reference to an outstanding state sentence and no specific recital as to the time of commencement of the federal sentence.
The question of when a federal sentence begins to run is answered by 18 U.S.C. § 3568 which provides:
The question of where a federal sentence is to be served is also governed by statute. In 18 U.S.C. § 4082 it is provided that:
"Persons convicted of an offense against the United States shall be committed, for such terms of imprisonment as the court may direct, to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States or his authorized representative, who shall designate the places of confinement where the sentences shall be served."
The language of the judgment of commitment here is therefore clear and adequate in providing that appellant be committed to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States.
Appellant's remaining complaint here is to the effect that his plea of guilty was induced by promises of government agents for some form of leniency. This has not been presented to the district court for its consideration and cannot be made the subject of an original petition here.
The order appealed from, filed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and treated by the district court as a petition for writ of coram nobis, is, therefore, affirmed, without prejudice to appellan...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Coronado
...(on appeal from denial of rule 32(d) motion court would not consider contentions not presented to district court); Wilkins v. United States, 351 F.2d 609 (5th Cir. 1965) (on appeal of denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief from guilty plea court would not consider contentions not presented to di......
-
United States v. Briscoe, 20028.
...v. Cooper, 410 F.2d 1128 (5 Cir. 1969); Heard v. United States, 129 U.S. App.D.C. 100, 390 F.2d 866, 868 (Cir. 1968); Wilkins v. United States, 351 F. 2d 609 (5 Cir. 1965); Bush v. United States, 347 F.2d 231 (6 Cir. 1965); Marshall v. United States, 321 F.2d 897 (10 Cir. 1963); Flynn v. Un......
-
U.S. v. Hay, 81-2408
...States v. Briscoe, 428 F.2d 954, 956 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 966, 91 S.Ct. 378, 27 L.Ed.2d 386 (1970); Wilkins v. United States, 351 F.2d 609, 610 (5th Cir. 1965) (unkept plea bargain). As these decisions note, ordinarily the appeal from such a conviction requires determination o......