Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
United States v. Milton Charles Smith, AKA "Creep," AKA "Shaw," AKA "Short,"
United States v. Milton Charles Smith, AKA "Creep," AKA "Shaw," AKA "Short,", 703 F.2d 627 (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1983)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1983-03-25
- Topic
- bankruptcy
How later courts describe this case
- trial court directed to vacate the conspiracy conviction and resentence the defendant
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Milton Charles Smith, AKA "Creep," AKA "Shaw," AKA "Short,". The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 15 opinions
UNITED STATES v. SMITH,703 F.2d 627(D.C. Cir. 1983)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MILTON CHARLES SMITH, AKA "CREEP," AKA "SHAW,"
AKA "SHORT," APPELLANT.
No. 81-2210.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued March 2, 1983.
Decided March 25, 1983.
Louis M. Fischer, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Stanley S. Harris, U.S. Atty., and Michael W. Farrell, Charles J. Harkins, Jr., and Daniel S. Seikaly, Asst. U.S. Attys., Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellees.
Before WRIGHT and WALD, Circuit Judges, and BONSAL,fn*Senior District Judge.
Opinion for the court PER CURIAM.
Opinion for the court PER CURIAM.
[2] Subsequently, appellant filed a motion under28 U.S.C. § 2255(1976) to vacate his conviction and sentence. He contended, among other things, that his conviction and sentence on separate counts for violating both21 U.S.C. § 846and21 U.S.C. § 848violated his constitutional rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. The District Court denied his motion. This appeal followed.
[3] The government concedes that the sentence imposed upon appellant is defective. It acknowledges that the District Court erroneously imposed sentences on both the greater offense (21 U.S.C. § 848) and the lesser included offense (21 U.S.C. § 846). The government also acknowledges that the District Court's imposition of a 15-to 30-year sentence violates 18 U.S.C. § 4205(b)(1) (1976), which requires that a minimum sentence not exceed one-third of the maximum imposed.
[4] Under these circumstances, we remand this case to the District Court for correction of its sentencing,i.e.,by vacating the conviction and sentence under21 U.S.C. § 846and reducing the 15-year minimum to a minimum of ten years' imprisonment.
[5]So ordered.Page 1284
- Of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 294(d) (1976). ↩