U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1958

Earl Kill Smith v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided March 3, 1958 · Parker, Sobeloff, Haynsworth

250 F.2d 37 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mathias J. DeVito, Baltimore, Md., for appellant., Earl Kill Smith, pro se, on brief, and John R. Hargrove, Asst. U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md. (Leon H. A. Pierson, U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md., on brief), for ap-pellee.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Joseph Givens, Jr. (9th Cir. 1985)
Glendel D. Wheeler v. United States (8th Cir. 1963)
United States v. McGann (District Court, D. Maryland 1962)
United States v. George Ershin Poindexter, United States of America v. Fay Albert Carrell, United States of America v. Melvin Glen Martin (6th Cir. 1961)

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from denial of a motion, made under Rule 35 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C., to- correct the sentence in a criminal case. Appellant pleaded guilty to, an indictment charging bank robbery and that in perpetrating the robbery he put in. jeopardy the lives of named persons “by the use of a dangerous weapon”. He was-sentenced to a term of twenty-five years, imprisonment and to pay a fine of $10,-000. He complains of this sentence on the ground that the “dangerous” weapon was not more specifically described in the indictment. The point is without merit for reasons adequately stated in the opinion of the District Judge. United States v. McGann, 150 F.Supp. 463. The crime was charged in the language of the statute (18 U.S.C. § 2113(d)); and it is well settled that this is sufficient.

Affirmed.

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