TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Larry Brown and Dwite Gene Rover

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry BROWN and Dwite Gene Rover, Defendants-Appellants

United States v. Brown, 522 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1975)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 31, 1975
Docket
No. 75-2193
Judges
Brown, Godbold, Gee
Citations
522 F.2d 2071975 U.S. App. LEXIS 12125

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

We have considered appellants’ assignments of error relating to the insufficiency of the evidence, the jury instructions on bias and on knowledge that the victims were federal officers, the scope of cross-examination, and the sentences as abuses of discretion and as cruel and unusual punishment. After careful review of the record and applicable law, we find these assignments of error to be without merit.

Appellants also urge that the sentencing judge committed reversible error in failing to make an explicit finding at the time of sentencing, as required by Dorszynski v. U. S., 418 U.S. 424 , 94 S.Ct. 3042 , 41 L.Ed.2d 855 (1974), that they would not benefit from treatment under the Federal Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5005 et seq. The record indicates the judge was aware of the Act at the time of sentencing and expressly declined to apply it. Moreover, he made explicit findings in ruling on motions to modify the sentences that neither appellant would benefit from treatment under the Act. These findings were made shortly after sentencing and on consideration of the entire record.

We do not approve of this practice, and the better practice in all cases is to enter a finding of record before imposing sentence. However, under the circumstances of this case a remand would be overly technical and useless.

See U. S. v. Dover, 489 F.2d 688 (5th Cir. 1974).

Additionally, appellant Rover is a young adult offender, over the age of 22, and the sentencing judge is not required to make explicit findings of no benefit in his case.

U. S. v. Gamboa-Cano, 510 F.2d 598 (5th Cir. 1975).

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1976: 11977: 21978: 219762026peak 1977 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Edward Rodriguez585 F.2d 1234 (5th Cir. 1978)
  2. Larry Joseph Brown v. United States551 F.2d 619 (5th Cir. 1977)
  3. Sherod William Mitchell v. United States547 F.2d 875 (5th Cir. 1977)
  4. Fernando Perez Bustillo v. United States573 F.2d 368 (5th Cir. 1978)
  5. Richard Williams v. United States543 F.2d 1154 (5th Cir. 1976)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Edward Rodriguez585 F.2d 1234 (5th Cir. 1978)
  2. Fernando Perez Bustillo v. United States573 F.2d 368 (5th Cir. 1978)
  3. Larry Joseph Brown v. United States551 F.2d 619 (5th Cir. 1977)
  4. Sherod William Mitchell v. United States547 F.2d 875 (5th Cir. 1977)
  5. Richard Williams v. United States543 F.2d 1154 (5th Cir. 1976)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Dorszynski v. United States, 418 U.S. 424 (1974) 532

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