United States v. Sansone

D. New Jersey

United States v. Sansone

628 F. Supp. 113

District Court, D. New Jersey·Decided February 5, 1986·No. Crim. No. 85-294·Published

Opinion

CLARKSON S. FISHER, Chief Judge.

Defendant has moved to “clarify judgment of sentence” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4205(f). The sentence imposed was a split sentence; the term to be served was six months, to be followed by three years probation.

A section 4205(f) designation with a split sentence is, in my view, inappropriate. With a split sentence, there is no question about the amount of time to be served. Probation is to follow, not parole. There is no need to use section 4205(f) to shorten a term that is precisely fixed in the first place.

In a previous ruling, I explained my reasons for the sentence. They still apply. The Government will submit an order.

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

CLARKSON S. FISHER, Chief Judge.

Defendant has moved to “clarify judgment of sentence” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4205(f). The sentence imposed was a split sentence; the term to be served was six months, to be followed by three years probation.

A section 4205(f) designation with a split sentence is, in my view, inappropriate. With a split sentence, there is no question about the amount of time to be served. Probation is to follow, not parole. There is no need to use section 4205(f) to shorten a term that is precisely fixed in the first place.

In a previous ruling, I explained my reasons for the sentence. They still apply. The Government will submit an order.

United States v. Sansone, 628 F. Supp. 113 (D.N.J. 1986).

Pincite

628 F. Supp. 113 (United States v. Sansone) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related