United States v. Herman I. Weiner

Third Circuit

United States v. Herman I. Weiner

376 F.2d 42, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6745

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedApril 13, 1967

Docket16433

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 376 F.2d 42 (United States v. Herman I. Weiner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third 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. Herman I. Weiner, 376 F.2d 42, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6745 (3d Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from denial of a petition for reconsideration of sentence. The only point really warranting any comment is appellant’s contention that the sentence ordered that restitution be made. The Government states categorically that the sentencing Judge used the words “restitution” and “costs of prosecution” interchangeably. And the Government viewing the sentence as a whole, firmly states that from the language thereof it is clear “that the defendant should pay the costs of prosecution and not restitution.” At oral argument the United States District Attorney for the Government made the hard, binding statement to this Court that the word “restitution” in the sentence is at most surplusage. We agree with that construction of the sentence. In the circumstances the return of this case to the District Court for such an unnecessary technical correction would be improper.

We find no erroneous assumptions of fact by the trial Judge in connection with said sentence. The disclosure of the presentence report was within the discretion of the trial Judge. We have before us no careless or designed pronouncement of sentence on a false foundation as in Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 68 S.Ct. 1252, 92 L.Ed. 1690 (1948) or cases following it. We have a sentence within the statutory maximum free from abuse of discretion or other illegality.

The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from denial of a petition for reconsideration of sentence. The only point really warranting any comment is appellant’s contention that the sentence ordered that restitution be made. The Government states categorically that the sentencing Judge used the words “restitution” and “costs of prosecution” interchangeably. And the Government viewing the sentence as a whole, firmly states that from the language thereof it is clear “that the defendant should pay the costs of prosecution and not restitution.” At oral argument the United States District Attorney for the Government made the hard, binding statement to this Court that the word “restitution” in the sentence is at most surplusage. We agree with that construction of the sentence. In the circumstances the return of this case to the District Court for such an unnecessary technical correction would be improper.

We find no erroneous assumptions of fact by the trial Judge in connection with said sentence. The disclosure of the presentence report was within the discretion of the trial Judge. We have before us no careless or designed pronouncement of sentence on a false foundation as in Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 68 S.Ct. 1252, 92 L.Ed. 1690 (1948) or cases following it. We have a sentence within the statutory maximum free from abuse of discretion or other illegality.

The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

376 F.2d 42, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-herman-i-weiner-ca3-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack