Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Douglas Marcus Chewning

458 F.2d 381

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-03-24
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • enhancement of sentence based upon hearsay contained in presentence report not violative of due process

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Douglas Marcus Chewning. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
7 opinions
UNITED STATES v. CHEWNING,458 F.2d 381(9th Cir. 1972)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. DOUGLAS MARCUS CHEWNING,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 71-2592.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 24, 1972.
W. Edward Morgan, Tucson, Ariz., for defendant-appellant.

William C. Smitherman, U.S. Atty., James M. Wilkes, Asst. U.S. Atty., Tucson, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
Before HAMLEY, DUNIWAY and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Chewning appeals from his conviction for a violation of 26 U.S.C. § 4744(a) for which he was sentenced under the Youth Corrections Act. He complains that the district court's reliance on hearsay contained in his presentence report deprived him of due process. The issue has been decided against him. (Williams v. New York (1949)337 U.S. 241, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337.)

[2] In this case, wholly unlike United States v. Weston (9th Cir. 1971)448 F.2d 626, 634, the information in the presentence report was not unreliable. To the extent that there was any disputePage 382about the inferences to be drawn from the facts therein recited or the emphasis to be placed on those facts, the matters were fully explored in discussion among the court, Chewning, and Chewning's counsel. On this record there was no abuse of discretion in denying probation and committing Chewning to custody of the Attorney General pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 5010(b) and 5017(c).

[3] The judgment is affirmed.