Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

297 F.2d 80

Docket No. 6830.

Gregory v. United States Government

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1961-11-30

2 counsel of record

Relies on Grant v. Hunter · Gibson v. Looney · Hurst v. Zarter

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1961-11-30

How this case has been cited

Cited by 328 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2024 · most notably Olga Zdanok v. The Glidden Company, Durkee Famous Foods Division, Frank T. Alexander v. The Glidden Company, Durkee Famous Foods Division (1964), Metromedia Co. v. Fugazy (1992)

148 federal appellate · 19 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 16 states

9601961197019801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

No appearance for appellant.

Benjamin E. Franklin, Asst. U.S. Atty., Topeka, Kan. (Newell A. George, U.S. Atty., Kansas City, Kan., on the brief), for appellee.

Before PICKETT and HILL, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSON, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant permission to proceed in forma pauperis in an action wherein he seeks to restrain the aggregation of separate criminal sentences which were to be served consecutively.

¶2

On July 1, 1955, appellant was sentenced by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma to serve concurrently sentences of five years and two years for violations of the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2311 et seq. On September 27, 1955, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas sentenced Gregory to a term of two years for violation of the Federal Escape Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 751, to be served consecutively with the sentences he was then serving. Upon delivery to the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, his consecutive sentences, totaling seven years, were aggregated for the purpose of computing good time deductions. There is no merit to the contention that such aggregation of the sentences was illegal. 18 U.S.C.A. § 4161. Gibson v. Looney, 10 Cir., 258 F.2d 879; Hurst v. Zarter, 10 Cir., 195 F.2d 526; United States ex rel. Johnson v. O'Donovan, 7 Cir., 178 F.2d 810; Grant v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 166 F.2d 673.

¶3

Affirmed.

/297/f2d/80 · .json · Public domain