United States v. David T. Holt

Ninth Circuit

United States v. David T. Holt

704 F.2d 1140, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 28508

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 27, 1983

Docket82-1462

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 704 F.2d 1140 (United States v. David T. Holt) 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. David T. Holt, 704 F.2d 1140, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 28508 (9th Cir. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appellant, David T. Holt, contends that the district court was required to hold a hearing on his Rule 35 motion for modification of sentence. Fed.R.Crim.P. 35. The district court’s decision not to hold a hearing in a Rule 35 proceeding will be reversed only when the district court has abused its discretion, United States v. Krueger, 454 F.2d 1154 (9th Cir.1972). Holt has demonstrated no such abuse. The motion and attached affidavits in this case made an ample record, and it does not appear from the appeal that any additional information would have been adduced at an oral hearing.

The case of United States v. Ginzburg, 398 F.2d 52 (3d Cir.1969), is distinguishable, for there the applicable substantive law had changed after sentencing, and a hearing was deemed useful to present additional evidence that might have led to a modification of the sentence.

It may well have been that here, as in many other criminal proceedings, the sentencing phase of the case was the one of most importance to the defendant, and we would have been more comfortable with the matter had the hearing been held. Nevertheless, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

The appellant, David T. Holt, contends that the district court was required to hold a hearing on his Rule 35 motion for modification of sentence. Fed.R.Crim.P. 35. The district court’s decision not to hold a hearing in a Rule 35 proceeding will be reversed only when the district court has abused its discretion, United States v. Krueger, 454 F.2d 1154 (9th Cir.1972). Holt has demonstrated no such abuse. The motion and attached affidavits in this case made an ample record, and it does not appear from the appeal that any additional information would have been adduced at an oral hearing.

The case of United States v. Ginzburg, 398 F.2d 52 (3d Cir.1969), is distinguishable, for there the applicable substantive law had changed after sentencing, and a hearing was deemed useful to present additional evidence that might have led to a modification of the sentence.

It may well have been that here, as in many other criminal proceedings, the sentencing phase of the case was the one of most importance to the defendant, and we would have been more comfortable with the matter had the hearing been held. Nevertheless, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

704 F.2d 1140, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 28508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-david-t-holt-ca9-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack