Mariscal v. United States

449 U.S. 405, 101 S. Ct. 909, 66 L. Ed. 2d 616, 1981 U.S. LEXIS 57, 49 U.S.L.W. 3513
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 19, 1981
Docket80-5618
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 449 U.S. 405 (Mariscal v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mariscal v. United States, 449 U.S. 405, 101 S. Ct. 909, 66 L. Ed. 2d 616, 1981 U.S. LEXIS 57, 49 U.S.L.W. 3513 (1981).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

This case arises on a petition for certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed petitioner’s conviction on 10 counts of interstate transportation of property obtained by fraud, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 2314, and on 12 counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U. S. C. 1 1341. 626 F. 2d 868. The court affirmed the interstate transportation convictions on the merits, and declined to address the “rather complex issues” presented by the mail fraud convictions, invoking the discretionary “concurrent sentence” doctrine. App. to Pet. for Cert. 6-7; see Barnes v. United States, 412 U. S. 837, 848, n. 16 (1973); Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784, 787-793 (1969). In light of the Solicitor General’s concession in this Court that the mail fraud convictions were invalid, Memorandum in Opposition 4-5, we grant the motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, grant certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Ninth Circuit affirming the mail fraud convictions, and remand for reconsideration of the applicability of the “concurrent sen[406]*406tence” doctrine to a conviction conceded by the United States to be erroneous.

It is so ordered.

Justice White dissents, essentially for the reasons stated by Justice Rehnquist in his dissenting, opinion.

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

Related

United States v. Blaszczak
56 F.4th 230 (Second Circuit, 2022)
People of Michigan v. Muhammad Altantawi
Michigan Supreme Court, 2021
United States v. Staff Sergeant WILLIAM L. MITCHAM
Army Court of Criminal Appeals, 2017
Lawrence Kenemore, Jr. v. Keith Roy
690 F.3d 639 (Fifth Circuit, 2012)
Nunez v. United States
Supreme Court, 2008
United States v. Ogles
Ninth Circuit, 2006
Mabel A. Akers v. Anthony J. Principi
17 Vet. App. 561 (Veterans Claims, 2004)
State v. Ervin
510 S.E.2d 220 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1998)
Lawrence Ex Rel. Lawrence v. Chater
516 U.S. 163 (Supreme Court, 1996)
Stutson v. United States
516 U.S. 193 (Supreme Court, 1996)
United States v. Pryce
938 F.2d 1343 (D.C. Circuit, 1991)
Diaz-Albertini v. United States
498 U.S. 1061 (Supreme Court, 1991)
Alvarado v. United States
497 U.S. 543 (Supreme Court, 1990)
United States v. Hand
11 M.J. 321 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1981)
Mariscal v. United States
449 U.S. 405 (Supreme Court, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
449 U.S. 405, 101 S. Ct. 909, 66 L. Ed. 2d 616, 1981 U.S. LEXIS 57, 49 U.S.L.W. 3513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mariscal-v-united-states-scotus-1981.