Samuel Jennings Johnson v. United States

Fourth Circuit

Samuel Jennings Johnson v. United States

234 F.2d 813, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3782

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 18, 1956

Docket7190_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 234 F.2d 813 (Samuel Jennings Johnson v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Samuel Jennings Johnson v. United States, 234 F.2d 813, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3782 (4th Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate a sentence of imprisonment. Appellant was charged with conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 2312 and 2313. He declined appointment of counsel to represent him, pleaded guilty to the indictment and was sentenced to pay a fine and serve a term of imprisonment. There is nothing in the record to support a contention that the sentence thus imposed was invalid. He complains that he was improperly denied bail in a reasonable amount after his arrest; but this has nothing to do with the validity of the sentence.

At the time of the commission of the crime for which the sentence here under consideration was imposed, appellant was on parole from a prior sentence which he had been serving in a United States prison. After the commission of-the crime here, but before imposition of sentence, warrant was issued for his arrest for violation of parole; and, after sentence, a detainer was issued to the prison where he is serving the sentence here under consideration so that upon completion thereof he might be delivered to complete the service of the prior sen-, tence. He now claims that the imprisonment which he is now serving should be counted as service under the prior sen-, tence from which he was paroled. This contention has nothing to do with the validity of the sentence here under con-' sideration; but it is well settled that a prisoner sentenced for an offense committed while he was on parole may be-required by the Parole Board to serve the-unexpired portion of his first sentence after the expiration of his second sentence. Zerbst v. Kidwell, 304 U.S. 359, 58 S.Ct. 872, 82 L.Ed. 1399.

The District Judge properly denied the motion without a hearing, as it was apparent on the face of the motion and the files and record of the case that appellant was entitled to no relief.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate a sentence of imprisonment. Appellant was charged with conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 2312 and 2313. He declined appointment of counsel to represent him, pleaded guilty to the indictment and was sentenced to pay a fine and serve a term of imprisonment. There is nothing in the record to support a contention that the sentence thus imposed was invalid. He complains that he was improperly denied bail in a reasonable amount after his arrest; but this has nothing to do with the validity of the sentence.

At the time of the commission of the crime for which the sentence here under consideration was imposed, appellant was on parole from a prior sentence which he had been serving in a United States prison. After the commission of-the crime here, but before imposition of sentence, warrant was issued for his arrest for violation of parole; and, after sentence, a detainer was issued to the prison where he is serving the sentence here under consideration so that upon completion thereof he might be delivered to complete the service of the prior sen-, tence. He now claims that the imprisonment which he is now serving should be counted as service under the prior sen-, tence from which he was paroled. This contention has nothing to do with the validity of the sentence here under con-' sideration; but it is well settled that a prisoner sentenced for an offense committed while he was on parole may be-required by the Parole Board to serve the-unexpired portion of his first sentence after the expiration of his second sentence. Zerbst v. Kidwell, 304 U.S. 359, 58 S.Ct. 872, 82 L.Ed. 1399.

The District Judge properly denied the motion without a hearing, as it was apparent on the face of the motion and the files and record of the case that appellant was entitled to no relief.

Affirmed.

Arthur Shelton v. United States Board of Parole, Harvey Marion Boswell v. United States Board of Parole, Donald L. Smith v. .Hugh Rivers, Chairman, District of Columbia Board of Parole, Elbert Henry White v. United States Board of Parole, John L. Jacobs v. District of Columbia Board of Parole, George L. Williams v. Paul H. Preston, Superintendent, District of Columbia Jail

388 F.2d 567 (D.C. Circuit, 1967)

Joseph Orton Smith v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia

367 F.2d 539 (Fifth Circuit, 1966)

Phillip Daniels v. United States

246 F.2d 194 (Ninth Circuit, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 F.2d 813, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samuel-jennings-johnson-v-united-states-ca4-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack