From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Overstreet v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Oct 11, 1966
367 F.2d 83 (5th Cir. 1966)

Summary

In Overstreet v. United States, 367 F.2d 83, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit described such a contention as frivolous.

Summary of this case from Gonzales v. State

Opinion

No. 23550.

October 11, 1966.

Ernest Morgan, U.S. Atty., for appellee.

Before WISDOM, BELL and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.


The conviction of appellant for conspiring to violate the marihuana laws, 21 U.S.C.A. § 176a, was affirmed by this court. Overstreet v. United States, 5 Cir., 1963, 321 F.2d 459, cert. den., 376 U.S. 919, 84 S.Ct. 675, 11 L.Ed.2d 614. We held that there was no error in severing that part of the conspiracy count which rested on a violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 4744(a) from the charge of conspiring to violate 21 U.S.C.A. § 176a. We also held that the evidence warranted the conviction, and that there was no error in treating co-defendants differently from appellant.

Referred to inadvertently as § 4744(1).

It appeared that some of the co-defendants were allowed to plead guilty to conspiring to violate § 4744(a) only, and thus they received sentences shorter in time than the sentence imposed on appellant. This rankles appellant and in his motion, filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, he claims that the differing treatment resulting from the splitting or severing of the conspiracy count denied him equal protection of the laws and due process of law. This contention avails appellant nothing. It is what we decided against him on his appeal from the conviction.

Appellant also contends that this differing treatment coupled with his longer sentence is cruel and unusual punishment. This is a frivolous contention. The sentence is within the maximum provided by law. See Hornbrook v. United States, 5 Cir., 1954, 216 F.2d 112. The District Court was correct in denying appellant's motion.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Overstreet v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Oct 11, 1966
367 F.2d 83 (5th Cir. 1966)

In Overstreet v. United States, 367 F.2d 83, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit described such a contention as frivolous.

Summary of this case from Gonzales v. State
Case details for

Overstreet v. United States

Case Details

Full title:Tillman OVERSTREET, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Oct 11, 1966

Citations

367 F.2d 83 (5th Cir. 1966)

Citing Cases

Willoughby v. Phend, (N.D.Ind. 1969)

Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 381, 30 S.Ct. 544, 554, 54 L.Ed. 793 (1910). A sentence which is within…

People v. Jenkins

It includes consideration of mitigating and aggravating circumstances and includes the power to impose an…