The United States of America v. Abraham Johnson

Seventh Circuit

The United States of America v. Abraham Johnson

235 F.2d 159

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit·Decided August 14, 1956·No. 11626·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinions

FINNEGAN, Circuit Judge.

After pleading guilty to a six-count indictment charging violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 2553(a), 2554(a), 21 U.S.C.A. § 174 in connection with 321/2-45 grains of heroin and 25 grains of cocaine, defendant sought relief from his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1952 ed.). Upon denial of his motion, defendant asks our review of the district court’s order.

After studying the pleadings and briefs, we cannot say that the imposition of sentences on the various counts ran afoul of the Fifth Amendment's interdiction against double jeopardy. There is no transcript of evidence before us, but the indictment does show different quantities in grains of heroin and one of cocaine, and two different dates of transactions. Blockburger v. United States, 1932, 284 U.S. 299, 303-304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306.

Despite, the faithful efforts of Jerold S. Solovy, Esq., court appointed counsel, on behalf of his cause we find [161] no sound reason for disturbing the order overruling the defendant’s motion.

Judgment affirmed.

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

FINNEGAN, Circuit Judge.

After pleading guilty to a six-count indictment charging violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 2553(a), 2554(a), 21 U.S.C.A. § 174 in connection with 321/2-45 grains of heroin and 25 grains of cocaine, defendant sought relief from his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1952 ed.). Upon denial of his motion, defendant asks our review of the district court’s order.

After studying the pleadings and briefs, we cannot say that the imposition of sentences on the various counts ran afoul of the Fifth Amendment's interdiction against double jeopardy. There is no transcript of evidence before us, but the indictment does show different quantities in grains of heroin and one of cocaine, and two different dates of transactions. Blockburger v. United States, 1932, 284 U.S. 299, 303-304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306.

Despite, the faithful efforts of Jerold S. Solovy, Esq., court appointed counsel, on behalf of his cause we find [161] no sound reason for disturbing the order overruling the defendant’s motion.

Judgment affirmed.

The United States of America v. Abraham Johnson, 235 F.2d 159 (7th Cir. 1956).

Pincite

235 F.2d 159 (The United States of America v. Abraham Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related