Herbert Sperling v. J. T. Willingham, Warden

Seventh Circuit

Herbert Sperling v. J. T. Willingham, Warden

353 F.2d 6, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4073

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedNovember 3, 1965

Docket15005

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 353 F.2d 6 (Herbert Sperling v. J. T. Willingham, Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Herbert Sperling v. J. T. Willingham, Warden, 353 F.2d 6, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4073 (7th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Herbert Sperling, has appealed to this Court from denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the United States District Court. He states that he is concurrently serving two sentences: (1) for a term of 60 days to 6 years imposed on September 15, 1959, by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under the Youth Correction Act; and (2) for a term of 10 years imposed on February 19, 1960, by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Title 26, U.S.C.A. § 7237(d) [Narcotic Control Act of 1956] under which he is ineligible for parole.

Unlike the petitioner, we find the sentences definite, clearly defined, and within the general rule of United States v. Daugherty, 269 U.S. 360, 363, 46 S.Ct. 156, 70 L.Ed. 309 (1926) that sentences must reveal with fair certainty the intent of the court and exclude serious misapprehensions by those who must execute them, but that the elimination of all possible doubts cannot be demanded.

We find no merit in petitioner’s further contention that § 7237(d) is unconstitutional as a denial of equal protection of the laws, or other civil rights, or cruel and unusual punishment to persons *7 convicted under that statute as contrasted with persons convicted of other offenses who may be eligible for parole. Stewart v. United States, 8 Cir., 1964, 325 F.2d 745, 746, and cases there cited.

The order of the District Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Herbert Sperling, has appealed to this Court from denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the United States District Court. He states that he is concurrently serving two sentences: (1) for a term of 60 days to 6 years imposed on September 15, 1959, by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under the Youth Correction Act; and (2) for a term of 10 years imposed on February 19, 1960, by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Title 26, U.S.C.A. § 7237(d) [Narcotic Control Act of 1956] under which he is ineligible for parole.

Unlike the petitioner, we find the sentences definite, clearly defined, and within the general rule of United States v. Daugherty, 269 U.S. 360, 363, 46 S.Ct. 156, 70 L.Ed. 309 (1926) that sentences must reveal with fair certainty the intent of the court and exclude serious misapprehensions by those who must execute them, but that the elimination of all possible doubts cannot be demanded.

We find no merit in petitioner’s further contention that § 7237(d) is unconstitutional as a denial of equal protection of the laws, or other civil rights, or cruel and unusual punishment to persons *7 convicted under that statute as contrasted with persons convicted of other offenses who may be eligible for parole. Stewart v. United States, 8 Cir., 1964, 325 F.2d 745, 746, and cases there cited.

The order of the District Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

353 F.2d 6, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herbert-sperling-v-j-t-willingham-warden-ca7-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack