United States v. Marion His Law, Also Known as Charlie Boy His Law

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Marion His Law, Also Known as Charlie Boy His Law

85 F.3d 379, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 13316, 1996 WL 295063

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 5, 1996

Docket95-4228

StatusPublished

Cited by41 cases

This text of 85 F.3d 379 (United States v. Marion His Law, Also Known as Charlie Boy His Law) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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. Marion His Law, Also Known as Charlie Boy His Law, 85 F.3d 379, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 13316, 1996 WL 295063 (8th Cir. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Marion His Law challenges the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to distributing and possessing with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. The government argues the appeal should be dismissed because His Law agreed in the plea agreement to waive his right to appeal, or challenge via post-conviction writs of habeas corpus or co-ram nobis, the district court’s entry of judgment and imposition of sentence. We construe this as a promise on His Law’s part not to appeal his sentence. We have held that a promise made in a plea agreement is binding on the government and may be specifically enforced by a defendant. United States v. Kelly, 18 F.3d 612, 615-16 (8th Cir.1994). We conclude that this principle applies with equal force against defendants and therefore against His Law in this case.

We therefore specifically enforce His Law’s promise against him by dismissing his appeal.

1

. The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.

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

PER CURIAM.

Marion His Law challenges the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to distributing and possessing with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. The government argues the appeal should be dismissed because His Law agreed in the plea agreement to waive his right to appeal, or challenge via post-conviction writs of habeas corpus or co-ram nobis, the district court’s entry of judgment and imposition of sentence. We construe this as a promise on His Law’s part not to appeal his sentence. We have held that a promise made in a plea agreement is binding on the government and may be specifically enforced by a defendant. United States v. Kelly, 18 F.3d 612, 615-16 (8th Cir.1994). We conclude that this principle applies with equal force against defendants and therefore against His Law in this case.

We therefore specifically enforce His Law’s promise against him by dismissing his appeal.

1

. The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 F.3d 379, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 13316, 1996 WL 295063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-marion-his-law-also-known-as-charlie-boy-his-law-ca8-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack