Rosenstein v. United States

Seventh Circuit

Rosenstein v. United States

193 F. 1022, 113 C.C.A. 668, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1122

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit·Decided January 2, 1912·No. No. 1,783·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find in the record no error of such substance as to require or justify an order for a new trial. Counsel for plaintiff in error,, however, have called our attention to the matter of a proposed showing that the punishment should be less in view of extenuating circumstances which plaintiff in error excusably failed to bring before the District Court. As we have no jurisdiction to adjust the sentence, and as it seems proper that the matter should be inquired into, the judgment is vacated and the cause remanded for a resentence.

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

PER CURIAM.

We find in the record no error of such substance as to require or justify an order for a new trial. Counsel for plaintiff in error,, however, have called our attention to the matter of a proposed showing that the punishment should be less in view of extenuating circumstances which plaintiff in error excusably failed to bring before the District Court. As we have no jurisdiction to adjust the sentence, and as it seems proper that the matter should be inquired into, the judgment is vacated and the cause remanded for a resentence.

Rosenstein v. United States, 193 F. 1022, 113 C.C.A. 668, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1122 (7th Cir. 1912).

Pincite

193 F. 1022 (Rosenstein v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related