Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

302 F.2d 146

Docket No. 325.

Docket Docket 27437.

United States v. Soviero

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted April 4, 1962.

Decided April 30, 1962.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1962-04-30

2 counsel of record

Relies on Farrell v. United States · Braen v. Pfeifer Oil Transportation Co. · International Typographical Union v. National Labor Relations Board

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1962-04-30

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably Grigsby v. Coastal Marine Service of Texas, Inc. (1969), Boazman v. Economics Laboratory, Inc. (1976)

25 federal appellate ·

200196219701980199020002010decided

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 →

Louis Soviero, pro se.

Joseph P. Hoey, U. S. Atty., and Jerome C. Ditore, Asst. U. S. Atty., E. D. N. Y., Brooklyn, N. Y., for appellee.

Before CLARK, HINCKS, and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

Defendant pleaded guilty to a count charging him with conspiring with others to rob a bank and to a second count charging him with aiding and abetting the commission of that robbery. He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment under the first count, and eight years' imprisonment under the second count. He now claims that the second sentence must be vacated as double punishment for the same offense. His objection is only to the punishment, since he concedes that he could be convicted of the two offenses. His appeal is therefore frivolous, since the longer sentence can stand; the fact that it was actually the second sentence announced by the court in what was a single proceeding is of no consequence. See Smith v. United States, 9 Cir., 287 F.2d 270, 273-274, certiorari denied 366 U.S. 946, 81 S.Ct. 1676, 6 L.Ed.2d 856. Hence we do not need to consider the government's further contention that the two offenses are not identical. Defendant's separate motion for judgment because of late filing of the government's brief is also denied.

¶2

Affirmed.

/302/f2d/146 · .json · Public domain