United States v. Bedford James Hern

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Bedford James Hern

469 F.2d 689, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6788

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 9, 1972

Docket72-1353

StatusPublished

This text of 469 F.2d 689 (United States v. Bedford James Hern) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Bedford James Hern, 469 F.2d 689, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6788 (9th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to Count 2 of the indictment charging him with unlawful transportation of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. 174, committed on April 18, 1971. Count 1 was dismissed. He was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. Appellant’s two contentions are that the statute was beyond the power of Congress to enact and the refusal to name the informant deprived him of due process. In the context of this case neither contention is supported by the authorities and both are rejected. We affirm.

*690 Appellant was sentenced on August 30, 1971. He now argues he should have been sentenced under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention -and Control Act of 1970, P.L. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236, the effective date of which was May 1, 1971.

Appellant may make any motion he deems appropriate in the district court under Rule 35 F.R.Cr.P. for reduction or modification of sentence. See: United States v. Pregerson, 448 F.2d 404, 409 (9 Cir. 1971); United States v. Stephens, 449 F.2d 103, 105, 106 (9 Cir. 1971); United States v. Fiotto, 454 F.2d 252, 255 (2 Cir. 1972); United States v. McGarr, 461 F.2d 1, 3, 4, 5 (7 Cir. 1972); United States v. Winston, No. 72-1500 (9 Cir. 1972).

Affirmed. Mandate will issue forthwith.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to Count 2 of the indictment charging him with unlawful transportation of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. 174, committed on April 18, 1971. Count 1 was dismissed. He was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. Appellant’s two contentions are that the statute was beyond the power of Congress to enact and the refusal to name the informant deprived him of due process. In the context of this case neither contention is supported by the authorities and both are rejected. We affirm.

*690 Appellant was sentenced on August 30, 1971. He now argues he should have been sentenced under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention -and Control Act of 1970, P.L. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236, the effective date of which was May 1, 1971.

Appellant may make any motion he deems appropriate in the district court under Rule 35 F.R.Cr.P. for reduction or modification of sentence. See: United States v. Pregerson, 448 F.2d 404, 409 (9 Cir. 1971); United States v. Stephens, 449 F.2d 103, 105, 106 (9 Cir. 1971); United States v. Fiotto, 454 F.2d 252, 255 (2 Cir. 1972); United States v. McGarr, 461 F.2d 1, 3, 4, 5 (7 Cir. 1972); United States v. Winston, No. 72-1500 (9 Cir. 1972).

Affirmed. Mandate will issue forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

469 F.2d 689, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-bedford-james-hern-ca9-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack