United States v. Harold Joseph O'brien, Also Known as M. Victor MacKey AKA Maurice Victor MacKey

349 F.2d 375, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4978
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJuly 6, 1965
Docket9720_1
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 349 F.2d 375 (United States v. Harold Joseph O'brien, Also Known as M. Victor MacKey AKA Maurice Victor MacKey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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. Harold Joseph O'brien, Also Known as M. Victor MacKey AKA Maurice Victor MacKey, 349 F.2d 375, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4978 (4th Cir. 1965).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

O’Brien was convicted of interstate transportation of forged securities and committed to the custody of the Attorney General for study and recommendations under 18 U.S.C.A. § 4208(b). Upon receipt of the report of the Bureau of Prisons, on September 25, 1962, the District Judge imposed a sentence of ten years. The defendant was not present when this sentence was imposed. Upon the decision in the Behrens case, United States v. Behrens, 375 U.S. 162, 84 S. Ct. 295, 11 L.Ed.2d 224 (1963), the defendant wrote the Judge a letter on October 12, 1964, which the court treated as a motion to vacate sentence under Title 28, section 2255, vacated the sentence, had O’Brien brought before the court, and sentenced him this time to seven and one-half years in prison, dating from the date of the original commitment.

On these appeals the defendant claims that after the original sentence had been vacated, the court had no power to reimpose a sentence on the defendant. The point is frivolous and is directly negated by section 2255.

The defendant was accompanied in court on October 30, 1964, by an associate of his trial counsel, whom O’Brien presented to the court, saying, “if I needed an attorney, he was going to volunteer his service and accept an appointment.”

In response to the court’s offer to appoint him an attorney, the defendant declined.

We find no error in the proceedings under review.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Richard E. Walsh v. United States
374 F.2d 421 (Ninth Circuit, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
349 F.2d 375, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-harold-joseph-obrien-also-known-as-m-victor-mackey-aka-ca4-1965.