TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Timothy Paul Scanlon

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Timothy Paul SCANLON, Appellant

United States v. Scanlon, 702 F.2d 736 (8th Cir. 1983)
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
March 28, 1983
Docket
No. 82-2195
Judges
Heaney, Ross, Fagg
Citations
702 F.2d 7361983 U.S. App. LEXIS 29347

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Paul Scanlon appeals the denial of his motion to vacate and set aside his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . On May 9,1980, Scanlon was sentenced to concurrent terms of eight years plus a special parole term of four years following his conviction on charges of importation of cocaine and conspiracy to import cocaine. On June 4, 1981, the district court entered an order pursuant to Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure modifying the original sentence to provide for a term of imprisonment for a period of seven years as to each count, plus a four year special parole term, again, with the sentences to be served concurrently and not consecutively.

Scanlon alleges that the sentence he received is illegal because the district court improperly considered two prior Columbian convictions, which were introduced at trial, in fixing and enhancing the sentence. Scanlon contends that these convictions were obtained in violation of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963) and a hearing is required under United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 , 92 S.Ct. 589 , 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972) to remedy a denial of his due process rights.

The district court found that Scanlon’s sentence was founded upon proper and substantial information which was furnished to the court, both at trial and as a part of the presentence investigation report, by Scan-lon himself. The district court then ordered that Scanlon was not entitled to have his sentence vacated and set aside pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 .

We have carefully studied the record, including the district court’s order and the briefs of the parties to this action. We find no merit to Scanlon’s arguments, and accordingly enforce the order of the district court pursuant to Rule 14 of the rules of this court.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (1972) 2,080
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) 7,426

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