United States v. Robert William Wade

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. Robert William Wade

788 F.2d 722, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 24892

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedMay 6, 1986

Docket85-5446

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 788 F.2d 722 (United States v. Robert William Wade) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 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. Robert William Wade, 788 F.2d 722, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 24892 (11th Cir. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Wade pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute and to the accompanying substantive offense, 21 U.S.C. §§ 955c and 955a(a). On April 13, 1984 he was sentenced to four years on each count consecutive.

This appeal is from the denial of a Rule 35 motion to correct the sentence as illegal because of the provision that the terms are consecutive.

The consecutive terms are not prohibited by the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. Pub.L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 1837, 2031-34; see 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 3561 et seq. Section 3584 thereof does not become effective until November 1, 1986. Moreover it relates to a consecutive term for an attempt and for another offense that was the sole objective of the attempt. 98 Stat. at 2000-01.

28 U.S.C. § 991 et seq. authorizes a commission to promulgate sentencing guidelines. Section 994(1 )(2) provides that the guidelines shall reflect the general inappropriateness of imposing consecutive terms of imprisonment for an offense of conspiring to commit an offense and an offense that was the sole object of the conspiracy. This statute was not effective until October 12, 1984, six months after Wade was sentenced, the guidelines have not been drawn, and even if the statute were retroactive it does not prohibit consecutive sentences.

The contention that Congress did not intend consecutive sentences for violation of 21 U.S.C. § 955a(a) and 955c is foreclosed. U.S. v. Allen, 724 F.2d 1556, 1558 (11th Cir.1984).

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Wade pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute and to the accompanying substantive offense, 21 U.S.C. §§ 955c and 955a(a). On April 13, 1984 he was sentenced to four years on each count consecutive.

This appeal is from the denial of a Rule 35 motion to correct the sentence as illegal because of the provision that the terms are consecutive.

The consecutive terms are not prohibited by the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. Pub.L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 1837, 2031-34; see 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 3561 et seq. Section 3584 thereof does not become effective until November 1, 1986. Moreover it relates to a consecutive term for an attempt and for another offense that was the sole objective of the attempt. 98 Stat. at 2000-01.

28 U.S.C. § 991 et seq. authorizes a commission to promulgate sentencing guidelines. Section 994(1 )(2) provides that the guidelines shall reflect the general inappropriateness of imposing consecutive terms of imprisonment for an offense of conspiring to commit an offense and an offense that was the sole object of the conspiracy. This statute was not effective until October 12, 1984, six months after Wade was sentenced, the guidelines have not been drawn, and even if the statute were retroactive it does not prohibit consecutive sentences.

The contention that Congress did not intend consecutive sentences for violation of 21 U.S.C. § 955a(a) and 955c is foreclosed. U.S. v. Allen, 724 F.2d 1556, 1558 (11th Cir.1984).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

788 F.2d 722, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 24892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-robert-william-wade-ca11-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack