Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1934

Jones v. Hill

Jones v. Hill
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Decided June 21, 1934 · Buffington
71 F.2d 932; 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 3252 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Nathan Fink, of Scranton, Pa., for appellant., Andrew B. Dunsmore, U. S. Atty., of Wellsboro, Pa., and Herman F. Reich, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Sunbury, Pa., for appellee.

Jones v. Hill

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In 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.

From 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.

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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.