Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

71 F.2d 932

Docket No. 5258.

Jones v. Hill

Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided June 21, 1934.

Third Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1934-06-21

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““* * * ‘The great weight of authority in the federal courts holds that such sentences are not void and that a general or gross sentence may be imposed under an indictment containing more than one count so long as it does not exceed the aggregate of the punishments which could have been imposed upon the several counts. * * *’” 5”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including United States v. Lynch, Jackson v. Humphrey

Relies on Ex Parte De Bara · Neely v. United States · Myers v. Morgan

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1934-06-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently September 2012

10 federal appellate ·

50193419401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 →

¶1Nathan Fink, of Scranton, Pa., for appellant.

¶2Andrew B. Dunsmore, U. S. Atty., of Wellsboro, Pa., and Herman F. Reich, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Sunbury, Pa., for appellee.

¶3Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAYIS, Circuit Judges.

¶4BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

¶5In the court below the appellant, Reese B. Jones, on a writ of habeas corpus sought to be discharged from the Federal Penitentiary at Lewisburg in this circuit. That court dismissed the writ; thereupon this appeal was taken.

¶6From the record it appears the petitioner pleaded guilty in an Ohio Federal District Court on three indictments charging him with violations of the national banking laws. He was then sentenced to imprisonment of seven years on each indictment, to run consecutively. The act under which he was sentenced provides for imprisonment for five years for each violation thereof. In its opinion the court held: “The great weight of authority in the federal courts holds that such sentences are not void and that a general or gross sentence may be imposed under an indictment containing more than one count so« long as it does not exceed the aggregate of the punishments which could have been imposed upon the several counts. Ex Parte De Bara, 179 U. S. 316, 21 S. Ct. 110, 45 L. Ed. 207; Hyde v. United States (C. C. A.) 198 F. 610, 613; Myers v. Morgan (C. C. A.) 224 F. 413; Brinkman v. Morgan (C. C. A.) 253 F. 553; Neely v. United States (C.. C. A.) 2 F.(2d) 849; Feigin v. United States (C. C. A.) 3 F.(2d) 866; Rice v. United States (C. C. A.) 7 F.(2d) 319; Adams v. White, Warden (C. C. A.) 31 F.(2d) 982; Flynn v. United States (C. C. A.) 57 F.(2d) 1044.” We have not overlooked the ruling in United States v. Peeke (C. C. A.) 153 F. 166,12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 314, which was based on facts not fully reported.

¶7We are of opinion the court below, on the authorities cited, committed no error, and we affirm the case on its decision.

/71/f2d/932 · .json · Public domain