Hamilton v. United States
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Manning v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964)
- Vandegrift v. State (Md. 1961)
- Bistram v. United States (District Court, D. North Dakota 1960)
- Isaac Henry Call v. United States of America, Tal Joe Pearson v. United States of America, (Two Cases). Squire Wiles v. United States (4th Cir. 1959)
- Horace Chandler Davis v. United States (6th Cir. 1959)
- Charles Grover Hart v. United States (4th Cir. 1958)
- United States v. Smith (District Court, District of Columbia 1958)
- Clay Marlette v. United States (4th Cir. 1957)
- Clay Marlette v. United States (4th Cir. 1956)
- Scott v. District of Columbia (D.C. 1956)
- Ervin A. Gibb v. United States (5th Cir. 1954)
- Gibb v. United States (5th Cir. 1954)
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
This is an appeal from the denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate or correct a sentence of imprisonment. Appellant complains of the sentence because under a plea of guilty entered to several counts of an indictment the court imposed a sentence longer than might have been imposed under any one of the counts but less than the aggregate of the sentences that might have been imposed under all of them. This was unquestionably proper. Neely v. United States, 4 Cir., 2 F.2d 849. While it is ordinarily desirable that sentence be imposed under each count of an indictment on which a conviction is had or plea of guilty is entered, the sentence here was evidently entered in the form that it was in view of the fact that a prior sentence which had been served in part had been set aside, and in order that the prisoner might not be required to serve a greater aggregate sentence than had originally been imposed. We note that this is the second appeal taken by this prisoner from denials of motion for the vacation of the sentence. See Hamilton v. United States, 4 Cir., 194 F.2d 1011. The District Court was not required to entertain a second motion to set aside the sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court did entertain the motion, however, and properly denied it.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.