TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. James S. Campbell

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. James S. CAMPBELL, Defendant/Appellant

United States v. Campbell, 724 F.2d 812 (9th Cir. 1984)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 8, 1984
Docket
No. 83-3037
Judges
Boochever, Wright, Canby, Boo-Chever
Citations
724 F.2d 812

Opinion — Boochever

BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judge:

This is an appeal from a conviction for using a telephone to facilitate a conspiracy to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843 (b). It presents the novel question of whether a sentencing court may properly consider a prior drug conviction under the Federal Youth Corrections Act (FYCA), 18 U.S.C. § 5005 et seq.

Campbell contends that the parole and probation department’s reference in its presentence report to his prior FYCA conviction was improper. We do not agree.

Judges have broad discretion to consider a wide range of information in determining an appropriate sentence.

United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 446 , 92 S.Ct. 589, 591 , 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972);

United States v. Williams, 668 F.2d 1064, 1072 (9th Cir.1981). We believe such information may include a prior conviction pursuant to the FYCA. In urging us to adopt a contrary position, Campbell relies on United States v. Fryer, 545 F.2d 11 (6th Cir.1976). This reliance is misplaced. The Fryer court held only that a prior FYCA conviction could not be used as the basis for a conviction pursuant to the firearms statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922 (a)(6), which requires as an essential element of the offense a prior felony conviction.

Id.

at 13-14 .

Although section 5021 provides for setting aside FYCA convictions, the ex-pungement does not affect the nonpublic record retained by the Department of Justice.

Doe v. Webster, 606 F.2d 1226 , 1237 n. 47 (D.C.Cir.1979). In its exhaustive review of the legislative history of section 5021, the Doe court noted that Congress’ clear intent was to prevent public dissemination, and particularly dissemination to prospective employers, of an FYCA conviction.

Id.

at 1234-1240 . Nothing in that section suggests that the record may not be retained for later use by another court.

*813 18 U.S.C. § 5038 specifically permits the release of the sealed record of a Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (FJDA) proceeding, whether or not there is a conviction, to “another court of law,” and to “an agency preparing a presentence report for another court.” If a sealed record of a proceeding involving a person under the age of 18 may be used by another court, certainly an expunged record of an FYCA conviction applicable to a person under the age of 22 may be so used. 18 U.S.C. § 5006 (d). The district court’s judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.

1

1

. We have disposed of the other issues raised by Campbell on this appeal by a separate memorandum decision because they do not meet the standards set by Rule 21 of the Rules of this court for disposition by published opinion.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1984: 11985: 21987: 11988: 21990: 21991: 12002: 22004: 22007: 119842026peak 1985 · 2

Most recent

  1. Dare v. United States Parole Commission212 F. App'x 144 (3d Cir. 2007)
  2. United States v. Viken Hovsepian Viken Yacoubian, Viken Hovsepian v. United States of America John Ashcroft, Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Viken Hovsepian Viken Yacoubian v. United States of America John Ashcroft, Attorney General, United States Department of Justice359 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2004)
  3. United States v. Hovsepian359 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2004)
  4. United States v. Viken Hovsepian Viken Yacoubian, Viken Hovsepian v. United States of America United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, Viken Hovsepian Viken Yacoubian v. United States of America United States Immigration and Naturalization Service307 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2002)
  5. United States v. Hovsepian307 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2002) · Dissent
  6. United States v. Sammy Dewayne Kammerdiener945 F.2d 300 (9th Cir. 1991) · Dissent

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (1972) 2,080
Doe v. Webster, 606 F.2d 1226 (D.C. Cir. 1979) 106
United States v. Fryer, 545 F.2d 11 (6th Cir. 1977) 43
UNITED STATES of Am. v. Williams, 668 F.2d 1064 (9th Cir. 1982) 27

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