United States v. Dean Nelson Burns

446 F.2d 896, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 8486
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedAugust 17, 1971
Docket71-1641_1
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 446 F.2d 896 (United States v. Dean Nelson Burns) 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. Dean Nelson Burns, 446 F.2d 896, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 8486 (9th Cir. 1971).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Burns was convicted for wilfully failing to register under the Military Selective Service Act of 1967, 50 U.S.C.App. § 462. He contends on appeal that admission of his oral statement to a government agent was improper under the Miranda guidelines, that the statute under which he has been prosecuted is unconstitutional, and that his three-year sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

The record amply supports the district’s court’s finding that appellant received the Miranda warnings and waived his rights before making his statement.

Appellant’s constitutional challenge to the draft statute rests upon arguments that have been rejected by prior decisions of this court. See, e. g. United States v. Gidmark, 440 F.2d 773 (9th Cir. 1971); United States v. Leavy, 422 F.2d 1155 (9th Cir. 1970).

A three-year sentence for violation of 50 U.S.C.App. § 462 does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Little v. United States, 409 F.2d 1343, 1345 (10th Cir. 1969).

The district court has reduced the sentence from three to two years upon appellant’s motion. Since appellant had earlier filed a notice of appeal, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion to reduce sentence. United States v. Ellenbogen, 390 F.2d 537 (2d Cir. 1968). Burns will have 120 days after the mandate of this court issues to file a new motion in the district court to reduce sentence. Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The conviction is affirmed.

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

Related

United States v. Guy Robin Edwards
800 F.2d 878 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)
United States v. Quema Holloway
740 F.2d 1373 (Sixth Circuit, 1984)
Fredrick G. Doyle v. United States
721 F.2d 1195 (Ninth Circuit, 1983)
Commonwealth v. Layne
435 N.E.2d 356 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1982)
Paul Williams v. United States
651 F.2d 648 (Ninth Circuit, 1981)
United States v. Guy Richard Johns, Jr.
638 F.2d 222 (Tenth Circuit, 1981)
Turner v. United States
423 F. Supp. 581 (E.D. Virginia, 1976)
United States v. Dabney
397 F. Supp. 782 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1975)
United States v. Theodore Douglas Dooley
471 F.2d 570 (Eighth Circuit, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
446 F.2d 896, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 8486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-dean-nelson-burns-ca9-1971.