United States v. Douglas Marcus Chewning
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas Marcus CHEWNING, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
Chewning appeals from his conviction for a violation of 26 U.S.C. § 4744 (a) for which he was sentenced under the Youth Corrections Act. He complains that the district court’s reliance on hearsay contained in his presentence report deprived him of due process. The issue has been decided against him. (Williams v. New York (1949) 337 U.S. 241 , 69 S.Ct. 1079 , 93 L.Ed. 1337 .)
In this case, wholly unlike United States v. Weston (9th Cir. 1971) 448 F.2d 626, 634 , the information in the presentence report was not unreliable. To the extent that there was any dispute *382 about the inferences to be drawn from the facts therein recited or the emphasis to be placed on those facts, the matters were fully explored in discussion among the court, Chewning, and Chewning’s counsel. On this record there was no abuse of discretion in denying probation and committing Chewning to custody of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 5010 (b) and 5017(c).
The judgment is affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(enhancement of sentence based upon hearsay contained in presentence report not violative of due process)
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.