Claude Leon Guidry v. United States, 433 F.2d 968 (5th Cir. 1970). · Go Syfert
Claude Leon Guidry v. United States, 433 F.2d 968 (5th Cir. 1970). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Dr. Luther Lewis Ashley, Jr., and John Franklin Roper (ca5, 1978-03-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Dr. Luther Lewis Ashley, Jr., and John Franklin Roper
5th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gui-dry v. United States, 317 F.Supp. 1110 (E.D.La.), affd., 433 F.2d 968 (5th Cir. 1970) [ 18 U.S.C. § 5010 ], The record of this conviction is not kept sealed and it may be used to attack credibility in a later proceeding.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Bryan Canniff and John Benigno
2d Cir. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Guidry v. United States, 317 F.Supp. 1110 (E.D.La.), affd., 433 F.2d 968 (5th Cir. 1970); 18 U.S.C. § 5010 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Donald E. McGann v. United States of America, No. 31061 Summary Calendar. $1$ Rule 18, 5th Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of New York, 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I
5th Cir. · 1971 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Guidry v. United States, 433 F.2d 968 (5th Cir. 1970); Abernathy v. United States, 418 F.2d 288 (5th Cir. 1969). 2 Although the only issue presented to the court below was that of the validity of the Youth Corrections Act, appellant has, by a 'Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal' filed three days after his reply brief, attempted to question the voluntariness of his guilty plea.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Claude Leon GUIDRY, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
29695.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Nov 11, 1970.
433 F.2d 968
Edward Chase, New Orleans, La., for petitioner-appellant; Claude L. Guidry, pro se., Gerald J. Gallinghouse, U. S. Atty., Joseph R. McMahon, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., for respondentappellee.
Bell, Ainsworth, Godbold.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from an order denying a motion to vacate and set aside a sentence. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. Guidry v.[*969] United States, E.D.La., 1970, 317 F.Supp. 1110. We affirm.

Appellant pleaded guilty to violating 26 U.S.C.A., § 5674 a misdemeanor offense carrying a maximum one year sentence. On May 7,1969, he was sentenced under the provisions of the Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C.A., §§ 5005-5026, to an indeterminate sentence which, under the Act, § 5017, could not exceed four years with a possibility of two more years under supervision.

Pointing to the disparity between the one year maximum sentence to which an adult or juvenile offender charged with the same offense would be subjected as compared with his own circumstances, appellant mounts a vigorous attack on his sentence on constitutional grounds, alleging that it violates the equal protection and due process clauses, and that it also constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. This particular Act of Congress, beginning with Cunningham v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 256 F.2d 467, has withstood similar attacks with unfailing consistency. See, among others, Abernathy v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969, 418 F.2d 288; United States v. Rehfield, 9 Cir., 1969, 416 F.2d 273; United States v. Dancis, 2 Cir., 1969, 406 F.2d 729; Foston v. United States, 8 Cir., 1968, 389 F.2d 86; Johnson v. United States, 4 Cir., 1967, 374 F.2d 966; Brisco v. United States, 3 Cir., 1966, 368 F.2d 214; Rogers v. United States, 10 Cir., 1963, 326 F.2d 56; Carter v. United States, 1962, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 123, 306 F.2d 283.

We find nothing in appellant's argument which persuades us to depart from these previous holdings. Neither do we find any merit in appellant’s argument that the provisions of the Act operate as an ex post facto law. Both the law to which he pleaded guilty and the Youth Corrections Act were in force at the time he committed the offense.

Affirmed.