United States v. Pesano

Second Circuit

United States v. Pesano

304 F.2d 856

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJuly 9, 1962

DocketNo. 366, Docket 27513

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 304 F.2d 856 (United States v. Pesano) 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. Pesano, 304 F.2d 856 (2d Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York after a jury trial and was sentenced to serve four concurrent terms of two years each. Upon appeal the conviction was affirmed, United States v. Pesano, 293 F.2d 229 (2 Cir., 1961). Appellant moved in the district court for a correction of the two year sentence, alleging that the judge who presided at the trial and who sentenced him one week later had indicated after verdict at the conclusion of the trial that the sentence to be later imposed would be four concurrent terms of eighteen months each. The motion was denied and appellant appeals. The sentence, imposed one week after verdict and after allocution, was a permissible sentence. The motion brought pursuant to Rule 35, Fed.R.Crim.Proc., 18 U.S.C. and 28 U.S. C. § 2255 was properly denied below, and that denial is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York after a jury trial and was sentenced to serve four concurrent terms of two years each. Upon appeal the conviction was affirmed, United States v. Pesano, 293 F.2d 229 (2 Cir., 1961). Appellant moved in the district court for a correction of the two year sentence, alleging that the judge who presided at the trial and who sentenced him one week later had indicated after verdict at the conclusion of the trial that the sentence to be later imposed would be four concurrent terms of eighteen months each. The motion was denied and appellant appeals. The sentence, imposed one week after verdict and after allocution, was a permissible sentence. The motion brought pursuant to Rule 35, Fed.R.Crim.Proc., 18 U.S.C. and 28 U.S. C. § 2255 was properly denied below, and that denial is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 F.2d 856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-pesano-ca2-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack