Ainsworth v. Sanford

Fifth Circuit

Ainsworth v. Sanford

104 F.2d 96, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 4081

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 20, 1939

DocketNo. 9006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 104 F.2d 96 (Ainsworth v. Sanford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ainsworth v. Sanford, 104 F.2d 96, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 4081 (5th Cir. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

McCORD, Circuit Judge.

On November 9, 1936, Joseph E. Ains-worth was convicted under an indictment charging violation of the Internal Revenue Laws. He was given a sentence of three years on count 1, two years on count 2, two years on count 3, and two years on count 4, all sentences to run consecutively. The prisoner was committed to the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia, on November 14, 1936.

The record discloses that on November 30, 1937, the district judge dismissed Ainsworth’s writ of habeas corpus. On September IS, 1938, application for anoth7 er writ was denied. His last application was denied on November 2, 1938, and he appeals.

The second count of the indictment charged Ainsworth with hawing in his possession a complete distilling apparatus without having registered the same with the “Collector of Internal Revenue”. This count was bad, and on February 17, 1938, while Ainsworth was still serving time imposed under the first count, an order correcting the sentence was entered by the District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The sentence as corrected eliminated count 2 and its penalty, and the sentences on counts 1, 3, and 4 were made.to run consecutively. This correction was in conformity with the decision in Fleisher v. United States, 302 U.S. 218, 58 S.Ct. 148, 82 L.Ed. 208.

The order denying the application for a writ of habeas corpus was correct.

.The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

McCORD, Circuit Judge.

On November 9, 1936, Joseph E. Ains-worth was convicted under an indictment charging violation of the Internal Revenue Laws. He was given a sentence of three years on count 1, two years on count 2, two years on count 3, and two years on count 4, all sentences to run consecutively. The prisoner was committed to the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia, on November 14, 1936.

The record discloses that on November 30, 1937, the district judge dismissed Ainsworth’s writ of habeas corpus. On September IS, 1938, application for anoth7 er writ was denied. His last application was denied on November 2, 1938, and he appeals.

The second count of the indictment charged Ainsworth with hawing in his possession a complete distilling apparatus without having registered the same with the “Collector of Internal Revenue”. This count was bad, and on February 17, 1938, while Ainsworth was still serving time imposed under the first count, an order correcting the sentence was entered by the District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The sentence as corrected eliminated count 2 and its penalty, and the sentences on counts 1, 3, and 4 were made.to run consecutively. This correction was in conformity with the decision in Fleisher v. United States, 302 U.S. 218, 58 S.Ct. 148, 82 L.Ed. 208.

The order denying the application for a writ of habeas corpus was correct.

.The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 F.2d 96, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 4081, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ainsworth-v-sanford-ca5-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack