Earl Kill Smith v. United States

Fourth Circuit

Earl Kill Smith v. United States

250 F.2d 37

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 3, 1958

Docket7464_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 250 F.2d 37 (Earl Kill Smith v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Earl Kill Smith v. United States, 250 F.2d 37 (4th Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from denial of a motion, made under Rule 35 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C., to- correct the sentence in a criminal case. Appellant pleaded guilty to, an indictment charging bank robbery and that in perpetrating the robbery he put in. jeopardy the lives of named persons “by the use of a dangerous weapon”. He was-sentenced to a term of twenty-five years, imprisonment and to pay a fine of $10,-000. He complains of this sentence on the ground that the “dangerous” weapon was not more specifically described in the indictment. The point is without merit for reasons adequately stated in the opinion of the District Judge. United States v. McGann, 150 F.Supp. 463. The crime was charged in the language of the statute (18 U.S.C. § 2113(d)); and it is well settled that this is sufficient.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from denial of a motion, made under Rule 35 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C., to- correct the sentence in a criminal case. Appellant pleaded guilty to, an indictment charging bank robbery and that in perpetrating the robbery he put in. jeopardy the lives of named persons “by the use of a dangerous weapon”. He was-sentenced to a term of twenty-five years, imprisonment and to pay a fine of $10,-000. He complains of this sentence on the ground that the “dangerous” weapon was not more specifically described in the indictment. The point is without merit for reasons adequately stated in the opinion of the District Judge. United States v. McGann, 150 F.Supp. 463. The crime was charged in the language of the statute (18 U.S.C. § 2113(d)); and it is well settled that this is sufficient.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 F.2d 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/earl-kill-smith-v-united-states-ca4-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack