TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Felix Francis Koneski

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Felix Francis KONESKI, Appellant

United States v. Koneski, 323 F.2d 862 (4th Cir. 1963)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 18, 1963
Docket
No. 8977_1
Judges
Boremajst, Bryan, Northrop, Per Curiam
Citations
323 F.2d 8621963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3950

Opinion — Per Curiam

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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1967: 11968: 21972: 11973: 21974: 11975: 31978: 11980: 119672026peak 1975 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Enrique Reyes Leyvas v. United States371 F.2d 714 (9th Cir. 1967)
  2. United States v. Santiago Mario Mendoza565 F.2d 1285 (5th Cir. 1978)
  3. United States v. Lawrence Janiec, in No. 74-1281 Appeal of Samuel Laytham, in No. 74-1282505 F.2d 983 (3d Cir. 1975)
  4. United States v. Ursini296 F. Supp. 1152 (D. Conn. 1968)
  5. Irizzary v. United States58 F.R.D. 65 (D. Mass. 1973)
  6. Fuentes v. United States371 F. Supp. 92 (D.P.R. 1973)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Snooks493 F. Supp. 1364 (W.D. Mo. 1980)
  2. United States v. Santiago Mario Mendoza565 F.2d 1285 (5th Cir. 1978)
  3. United States v. David Barnard Crawford512 F.2d 1254 (4th Cir. 1975)
  4. United States v. Isaacs392 F. Supp. 597 (N.D. Ill. 1975)
  5. United States v. Lawrence Janiec, in No. 74-1281 Appeal of Samuel Laytham, in No. 74-1282505 F.2d 983 (3d Cir. 1975)
  6. United States v. Lee382 F. Supp. 292 (S.D.W. Va 1974)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Call v. United States, Tal Joe Pearson v, 265 F.2d 167 (4th Cir. 1959) 13
E. L. Klingstein v. United States, 217 F.2d 711 (4th Cir. 1954) 9
Olson v. United States, 234 F.2d 956 (4th Cir. 1956) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list