United States v. Meyer Sohnen

280 F.2d 109, 6 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5104, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4068
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedJuly 5, 1960
Docket26182_1
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 280 F.2d 109 (United States v. Meyer Sohnen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second 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. Meyer Sohnen, 280 F.2d 109, 6 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5104, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4068 (2d Cir. 1960).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, well represented by counsel of his own choosing, pleaded guilty to all four counts of an indictment. Count I charged that he evaded payment of $64,-339.42 of income taxes for the year 1952; Count II, $67,934.64 for the year 1953; Count III, $23,010.03 for the yefir 1954; and Count IV that he understated his gross receipts for the year 1954 by $44,-039.36. By his plea appellant admitted a deliberate evasion of $155,284.09 of income taxes owed within a three-year span.

Upon the guilty plea the district judge imposed terms of five years’ imprisonment on each of the first three counts and of three years’ imprisonment on the fourth count, all terms to run concurrently. Though this sentence was within the maximum limits permissible by the applicable statutes appellant seeks to have us reduce it. We are unwilling to overrule three-score years and ten of consistent federal precedent uniformly followed since the United States Courts of Appeals were created in 1891; and therefore we hold that we have no power to modify the sentence. United States v. Rosenberg, 2 Cir., 1952, 195 F.2d 583, 604, and cases there cited, certiorari denied 344 U.S. 838, 73 S.Ct. 20, 97 L.Ed. 652; 344 U.S. 850, 73 S.Ct. 66, 97 L.Ed. 661; 344 U.S. 889, 73 S.Ct. 134, 97 L.Ed. 687; Roth v. United States, 2 Cir., 1958, 255 F.2d 440, certiorari denied 1958, 358 U.S. 819, 79 S.Ct. 31, 3 L.Ed.2d 61, and cases there cited; United States v. Lo Duca, 2 Cir., 1960, 274 F.2d 57, 59. Moreover, if we have the power we would find no excuse for exercising it in the circumstances of the present case.

Affirmed.

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

Related

United States v. Joseph Holder
412 F.2d 212 (Second Circuit, 1969)
United States v. Lee Vainderbilt Pruitt
341 F.2d 700 (Fourth Circuit, 1965)
William R. Leach v. United States
334 F.2d 945 (D.C. Circuit, 1964)
James M. Criser v. United States
319 F.2d 849 (Tenth Circuit, 1963)
Clarence D. Rogers v. United States
304 F.2d 520 (Fifth Circuit, 1962)
United States v. Morry Levine
288 F.2d 272 (Second Circuit, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
280 F.2d 109, 6 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5104, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-meyer-sohnen-ca2-1960.