U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1963

United States v. Felix Francis Koneski

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided October 18, 1963 · Boremajst, Bryan, Northrop, Per Curiam

323 F.2d 862; 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3950 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Richard S. Tilley, Roanoke, Va. (Court-assigned counsel), for appellant., James C. Roberson, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Santiago Mario Mendoza (5th Cir. 1978)
United States v. Snooks (District Court, W.D. Missouri 1980)
United States v. Lawrence Janiec, in No. 74-1281 Appeal of Samuel Laytham, in No. 74-1282 (3d Cir. 1975)
United States v. David Barnard Crawford (4th Cir. 1975)
United States v. Isaacs (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1975)
United States v. Lee (District Court, S.D. West Virginia 1974)
Fuentes v. United States (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 1973)
Irizzary v. United States (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1973)
United States v. Estela (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 1972)
United States v. Ursini (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1968)
United States v. Fitzgerald (District Court, W.D. Missouri 1968)
Enrique Reyes Leyvas v. United States (9th Cir. 1967)

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.

Felix Francis Koneski appeals from an order denying his motion for reduction or modification of sentence on the ground that the district court considered his prior criminal record, as disclosed by the report of a probation officer, in sentencing him to imprisonment for a term of thirty months while sentencing two others indicted with him and convicted of the same offense to terms of only twenty-four months.

It is well settled that the judge in imposing sentence may properly give consideration to matters contained in the report of a probation officer. Klingstein v. United States, 217 F.2d 711 (4th Cir., 1954); Olson v. United States, 234 F.2d 956 (4th Cir., 1956); Call v. United States, 265 F.2d 167 (4th Cir., 1959).

*863 The motion from which the appeal is taken was not timely made. Koneski wás convicted and sentenced on March 19, 1962, and the motion was filed almost ten months later on January 16, 1963. Rule 35 Fed.R.Crim.P. provides that a court may reduce a sentence within sixty days after the sentence is imposed. Rule 45(b) Fed.R.Crim.P. provides that the court may not enlarge the period for taking any action under Rule 35. We perceive no error in the denial of appellant’s motion.

Affirmed.

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