Martin Rodriguez Sanchez v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Martin Rodriguez Sanchez v. United States

584 F.2d 109, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 7646

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 17, 1978

Docket78-2604

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 584 F.2d 109 (Martin Rodriguez Sanchez v. United States) 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

Martin Rodriguez Sanchez v. United States, 584 F.2d 109, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 7646 (5th Cir. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from denial of relief under § 2255. The appellant testified under oath that there was no plea bargain. Without supporting evidence of any kind he now asserts there was. This is not sufficient. Matthews v. U. S., 533 F.2d 900 (CA5, 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1121, 97 S.Ct. 1156, 51 L.Ed.2d 571; Dugan v. U. S., 521 F.2d 231 (CA5, 1975).

The court was not required to enter findings that defendant would not benefit from the YCA. Brown v. U. S., 551 F.2d 619 (CA5, 1977); Mitchell v. U. S., 547 F.2d 875 (CA5,1977); U. S. v. Gamboa-Cano, 510 F.2d 598 (CA5, 1975). We cannot say that in imposing sentence the judge abused his discretion or considered improper factors. After this court’s decision in U. S. v. Cavazos, 530 F.2d 4 (CA5, 1976), concerning appellant’s codefendant, the district court on *110 remand re-sentenced Cavazos to the same sentence previously given him, which is the same sentence given to appellant. This court affirmed Cavazos’s re-sentence. U. S. v. Cavazos, No. 76-2777, 12/23/76 (unpublished opinion).

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 relief under § 2255. The appellant testified under oath that there was no plea bargain. Without supporting evidence of any kind he now asserts there was. This is not sufficient. Matthews v. U. S., 533 F.2d 900 (CA5, 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1121, 97 S.Ct. 1156, 51 L.Ed.2d 571; Dugan v. U. S., 521 F.2d 231 (CA5, 1975).

The court was not required to enter findings that defendant would not benefit from the YCA. Brown v. U. S., 551 F.2d 619 (CA5, 1977); Mitchell v. U. S., 547 F.2d 875 (CA5,1977); U. S. v. Gamboa-Cano, 510 F.2d 598 (CA5, 1975). We cannot say that in imposing sentence the judge abused his discretion or considered improper factors. After this court’s decision in U. S. v. Cavazos, 530 F.2d 4 (CA5, 1976), concerning appellant’s codefendant, the district court on *110 remand re-sentenced Cavazos to the same sentence previously given him, which is the same sentence given to appellant. This court affirmed Cavazos’s re-sentence. U. S. v. Cavazos, No. 76-2777, 12/23/76 (unpublished opinion).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

584 F.2d 109, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 7646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-rodriguez-sanchez-v-united-states-ca5-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack