Sandy Rogers v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Sandy Rogers v. United States

401 F.2d 387, 130 U.S. App. D.C. 322, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7340

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 12, 1968

Docket21733_1

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 401 F.2d 387 (Sandy Rogers v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sandy Rogers v. United States, 401 F.2d 387, 130 U.S. App. D.C. 322, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7340 (D.C. Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of appellant’s motion for summary reversal of the order of the District Court denying release on personal recognizance and of appellee’s opposition thereto, and it appearing that a judge of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions sitting as a committing magistrate found that appellant was a fit subject for release and set bond in this rape case, but see 18 U.S.C. § 3141, at $10,000 notwithstanding the fact that it appeared that appellant was unable to furnish bond in said amount and that said judge refused to alter the terms of release on an application for review, but see Pelletier v. United States, 120 U.S. App.D.C. 40, 343 F.2d 322 (1965), and it further appearing that the District Court denied appellant’s motion for release. on personal recognizance, and it further appearing that the Supreme Court has recently held unconstitutional the death penalty provision of the Federal Kidnaping Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a), see United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 20 L.Ed.2d 138 (April 8, 1968), it is

Ordered by the Court that this case is remanded to the District Court for consideration de novo, in the light particularly of United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 20 L.Ed.2d 138 (April 8, 1968).

McGOWAN, Circuit Judge, did not participate in the foregoing order.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of appellant’s motion for summary reversal of the order of the District Court denying release on personal recognizance and of appellee’s opposition thereto, and it appearing that a judge of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions sitting as a committing magistrate found that appellant was a fit subject for release and set bond in this rape case, but see 18 U.S.C. § 3141, at $10,000 notwithstanding the fact that it appeared that appellant was unable to furnish bond in said amount and that said judge refused to alter the terms of release on an application for review, but see Pelletier v. United States, 120 U.S. App.D.C. 40, 343 F.2d 322 (1965), and it further appearing that the District Court denied appellant’s motion for release. on personal recognizance, and it further appearing that the Supreme Court has recently held unconstitutional the death penalty provision of the Federal Kidnaping Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a), see United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 20 L.Ed.2d 138 (April 8, 1968), it is

Ordered by the Court that this case is remanded to the District Court for consideration de novo, in the light particularly of United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 20 L.Ed.2d 138 (April 8, 1968).

McGOWAN, Circuit Judge, did not participate in the foregoing order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

401 F.2d 387, 130 U.S. App. D.C. 322, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sandy-rogers-v-united-states-cadc-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack