Murphy Jenkins, Jr. v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Murphy Jenkins, Jr. v. United States

363 F.2d 24, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5549

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 8, 1966

Docket22593_1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 363 F.2d 24 (Murphy Jenkins, Jr. 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

Murphy Jenkins, Jr. v. United States, 363 F.2d 24, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5549 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant moved to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, alleging that he was improperly sentenced for two offenses, when in fact only one offense was involved. The offenses charged, and for which Appellant is now serving consecutive sentences, were (1) stealing a letter from an authorized mail receptacle; and (2) abstracting from the same letter a Louisiana welfare check, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1708. The District Court held that these constituted two separate and distinct offenses and therefore supported two separate sentences. We agree and affirm. Poffenbarger v. Aderhold, 5 Cir., 1933, 67 F.2d 250, cert. denied, 1934, 290 U.S. 703, 54 S.Ct. 375, 78 L.Ed. 604, following Poffenbarger v. United States, 8 Cir., 1927, 20 F.2d 42; Kinsella v. Looney, 10 Cir., 1954, 217 F.2d 445; see United States v. Gumbs, 2 Cir., 1957, 246 F.2d 441; cf. Wilburn v. United States, 5 Cir., 1964, 326 F.2d 903; Tesciona v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 1945, 151 F.2d 589.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant moved to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, alleging that he was improperly sentenced for two offenses, when in fact only one offense was involved. The offenses charged, and for which Appellant is now serving consecutive sentences, were (1) stealing a letter from an authorized mail receptacle; and (2) abstracting from the same letter a Louisiana welfare check, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1708. The District Court held that these constituted two separate and distinct offenses and therefore supported two separate sentences. We agree and affirm. Poffenbarger v. Aderhold, 5 Cir., 1933, 67 F.2d 250, cert. denied, 1934, 290 U.S. 703, 54 S.Ct. 375, 78 L.Ed. 604, following Poffenbarger v. United States, 8 Cir., 1927, 20 F.2d 42; Kinsella v. Looney, 10 Cir., 1954, 217 F.2d 445; see United States v. Gumbs, 2 Cir., 1957, 246 F.2d 441; cf. Wilburn v. United States, 5 Cir., 1964, 326 F.2d 903; Tesciona v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 1945, 151 F.2d 589.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

363 F.2d 24, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-jenkins-jr-v-united-states-ca5-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack