Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

HAMILTON v. UNITED STATES.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate or correct a sentence of imprisonment. Appellant complains of the sentence because under a plea of guilty entered to several counts of an indictment the court imposed a sentence longer than might have been imposed under any one of the counts but less than the aggregate of the sentences that might have been imposed under all of them. This was unquestionably proper. Neely v. United States, 4 Cir., 2 F.2d 849. While it is ordinarily desirable that sentence be imposed under each count of an indictment on which a conviction is had or plea of guilty is entered, the sentence here was evidently entered in the form that it was in view of the fact that a prior sentence which had been served in part had been set aside, and in order that the prisoner might not be required to serve a greater aggregate sentence than had originally been imposed. We note that this is the second appeal taken by this prisoner from denials of motion for the vacation of the sentence. See Hamilton v. United States, 4 Cir., 194 F.2d 1011. The District Court was not required to entertain a second motion to set aside the sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court did entertain the motion, however, and properly denied it.

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HAMILTON v. UNITED STATES
(Jun 3, 1953)