TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Salvatore Ross Agrusa

UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Salvatore Ross AGRUSA, Appellant

United States v. Agrusa, 528 F.2d 944 (8th Cir. 1976)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 20, 1976
Docket
No. 75--1786
Judges
Heaney, Per Curiam, Ross, Webster
Citations
528 F.2d 9441976 U.S. App. LEXIS 13273

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This appeal challenges the sentence awarded Salvatore Ross Agrusa follow *945 ing his conviction for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659 , possession of goods stolen from an interstate shipment. The sole issue is whether inclusion of certain matters in the presentence report constituted prejudicial error. We affirm the judgment of the district court.

The portion of the presentence report to which Agrusa objects alleged that he and his family were affiliated with organized crime and that certain witnesses in the trial had been threatened by the accused or his father. Agrusa denied these statements at the sentencing hearing. Since no objection to sentencing procedure was made by defense counsel during the hearing, resentencing would not be justified unless we find plain error. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52. Agrusa’s counsel was provided a copy of the presentence report and was permitted the opportunity to respond.

We have read the transcript of Agrusa’s sentencing hearing, and it is clear to us that the major factor which the district judge considered in sentencing the accused was his conclusion that Agrusa was a major “fence” for stolen goods. This finding was adequately supported by the evidence in this case and the accused’s past admitted record. It does not appear that the questioned segments were relied on to any appreciable extent.

1

Finding no prejudicial error, we affirm the judgment of conviction.

1

. The affirmance of the conviction and sentence should not be construed as an approval of the action of counsel for the United States in sending material derogatory to Agrusa directly to the trial court and refusing to provide counsel for defendant with a copy. Judge Hunter properly refused to read or consider this material.

How later courts describe this case

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

1977: 21983: 119772026peak 1977 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Davis557 F.2d 1239 (8th Cir. 1977)
  2. United States v. Lester Brown715 F.2d 387 (8th Cir. 1983)
  3. United States v. David Clarin Sneath557 F.2d 149 (8th Cir. 1977)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Lester Brown715 F.2d 387 (8th Cir. 1983)
  2. United States v. Davis557 F.2d 1239 (8th Cir. 1977)
  3. United States v. David Clarin Sneath557 F.2d 149 (8th Cir. 1977)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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