Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

547 F.2d 875

Docket No. 76-3313

Mitchell v. United States

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Feb. 23, 1977.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1977-02-23

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 1982

11 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 5005 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Dorszynski v. United States · United States v. McGough

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1977-02-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Summary Calendar.*

¶2*876Sherod William Mitchell, pro se.

¶3Ronald T. Knight, U. S. Atty., Charles T. Erion, Asst. U. S. Atty., Macon, Ga., for respondent-appellee.

¶4Before COLEMAN, GODBOLD and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

¶6PER CURIAM:

¶7This appeal is taken from an order of the district court dismissing the motion of this federal prisoner to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm.

¶8Appellant contends that the sentencing judge erred in failing to make an explicit finding that he would not benefit from treatment under the Federal Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5005 et seq. He cites Dorszynski v. United States, 1974, 418 U.S. 424, 94 S.Ct. 3042, 41 L.Ed.2d 855. Dorszynski is applicable only to those defendants under 22 years of age. Appellant was over 22 years of age at the time of conviction and classified as a young adult offender under 18 U.S.C. § 4209. As such, the sentencing judge was not required to make explicit findings that the defendant would not benefit from the Youth Corrections Act. United States v. Brown, 5 Cir. 1975, 522 F.2d 207; United States v. Gamboa-Cano, 5 Cir. 1975, 510 F.2d 598.

¶9The judgment below is affirmed.

¶10AFFIRMED.

/547/f2d/875 · .json · Public domain