holding that the defendant was charged with the knowledge that his sentence, if illegally imposed, would be subject to correction under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 and therefore, he had no expectation of finality in the sentence
Summary of this case from State v. HumesNo. 85-5635.
January 27, 1986.
C.A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 F. 2d 1070.
holding that the defendant was charged with the knowledge that his sentence, if illegally imposed, would be subject to correction under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 and therefore, he had no expectation of finality in the sentence
Summary of this case from State v. Humesholding that defendant had no expectation of finality because he "is charged with knowledge that his sentence, if illegally imposed (here, because the Government was denied its right to allocution), is subject to correction under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35"
Summary of this case from People v. Thompsonupholding district court's refusal to give entrapment instruction where defendant never had contact with federal agent
Summary of this case from State v. AgrabanteFull title:HAUPTMANN v. WILENTZ ET AL
Court:U.S.
Date published: Jan 27, 1986
In United States v. Cataldo, 832 F.2d 869, 875 (5th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1022, 108 S.Ct. 1577,…
U.S. v. PetitThe superseding indictment amended the original indictment in only two respects: (1) adding as an additional…