United States v. Louis Laurents

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Louis Laurents

564 F.2d 1178, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 5532

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 21, 1977

Docket77-5268

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 564 F.2d 1178 (United States v. Louis Laurents) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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. Louis Laurents, 564 F.2d 1178, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 5532 (5th Cir. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appellant, Laurents, was convicted on a plea of guilty of using a communication device, a telephone, to facilitate the distribution of heroin in violation of 21 U.S. C.A. § 843(b) (1972). The maximum penalty provided for the commission of a section 843(b) offense is four years imprisonment or a $30,000.00 fine, or both.

At the time the guilty plea was accepted, the district court ordered a presentence in *1179 vestigation; and prior to sentencing, the appellant and his counsel were given an opportunity to review the written report of the investigation. Later, when the case came on for sentencing, the district court invited both appellant and his counsel to comment on the report, to augment its contents, and to correct any errors that it might have contained, but neither had anything to offer. Then, before sentence was imposed, the court accorded appellant his full right of allocution.

Appellant was sentenced to a four-year term of imprisonment. His sole ground in this appeal is that the district court erred in not articulating its reasons for imposing the sentence.

It is unnecessary for us to determine whether, as a matter of judicial policy, the sentencing judge, in this or any case, should be required to announce his reasons for handing down a particular sentence. To be sure, a statement of reasons might aid us, in a given case, in determining whether the district court abused its discretion in performing the sentencing function. However, the record in this case conclusively establishes that the sentencing judge acted well within his discretion. The appellant was given full access to the presentence report; he was given a chance to correct or augment it; he received every right to be heard; and his sentence fell within the statutory authorization. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. *

*

See, United States v. Gamboa, 543 F.2d 545 (5th Cir. 1976).

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

PER CURIAM:

The appellant, Laurents, was convicted on a plea of guilty of using a communication device, a telephone, to facilitate the distribution of heroin in violation of 21 U.S. C.A. § 843(b) (1972). The maximum penalty provided for the commission of a section 843(b) offense is four years imprisonment or a $30,000.00 fine, or both.

At the time the guilty plea was accepted, the district court ordered a presentence in *1179 vestigation; and prior to sentencing, the appellant and his counsel were given an opportunity to review the written report of the investigation. Later, when the case came on for sentencing, the district court invited both appellant and his counsel to comment on the report, to augment its contents, and to correct any errors that it might have contained, but neither had anything to offer. Then, before sentence was imposed, the court accorded appellant his full right of allocution.

Appellant was sentenced to a four-year term of imprisonment. His sole ground in this appeal is that the district court erred in not articulating its reasons for imposing the sentence.

It is unnecessary for us to determine whether, as a matter of judicial policy, the sentencing judge, in this or any case, should be required to announce his reasons for handing down a particular sentence. To be sure, a statement of reasons might aid us, in a given case, in determining whether the district court abused its discretion in performing the sentencing function. However, the record in this case conclusively establishes that the sentencing judge acted well within his discretion. The appellant was given full access to the presentence report; he was given a chance to correct or augment it; he received every right to be heard; and his sentence fell within the statutory authorization. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. *

*

See, United States v. Gamboa, 543 F.2d 545 (5th Cir. 1976).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

564 F.2d 1178, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 5532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-louis-laurents-ca5-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack