Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

United States v. Carl Sanford Nickolson

United States v. Carl Sanford Nickolson, 468 F.2d 903 (4th Cir. 1972)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-10-30
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: Upon careful examination of the record and briefs, we eonclúde that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in committing the defendant to the custody of the Attorney General for treatment and supervision under the provisions of the Federal Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5010(c). Defendant contends that his commitment under that Act constitutes cruel and unusual punishment because of his prior clean record and because some proceeds of the crime were returned to the victims, See United States v. Martell, 335 F.2d 764, 766 (4th Cir. 1964), where we held “Where the sentence is within the limit set by the statute, we are barred, except in the most exceptional circumstances, from any inquiry we might otherwise be inclined to make.” Accordingly, we dispense with oral argúment and affirm the judgment below. Affirmed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Carl Sanford Nickolson. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1 opinion
UNITED STATES v. NICKOLSON,468 F.2d 903(4th Cir. 1972)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE v. CARL SANFORD NICKOLSON, APPELLANT.
No. 72-1283.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
October 30, 1972.
Harold J. Goodman, Norfolk, Va., on brief, for appellant.

Brian P. Gettings, U.S. Atty., James A. Oast, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., on brief, for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Before SOBELOFF and BOREMAN, Senior Circuit Judges, and WINTER, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Upon careful examination of the record and briefs, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in committing the defendant to the custody of the Attorney General for treatment and supervision under the provisions of the Federal Youth Corrections Act,18 U.S.C. § 5010(c). Defendant contends that his commitment under that Act constitutes cruel and unusual punishment because of his prior clean record and because some proceeds of the crime were returned to the victims,SeeUnited States v. Martell,335 F.2d 764,766(4th Cir. 1964), where we held "Where the sentence is within the limit set by the statute, we are barred, except in the most exceptional circumstances, from any inquiry we might otherwise be inclined to make."

[2] Accordingly, we dispense with oral argument and affirm the judgment below.

[3] Affirmed.Page 920