green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.2 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases ·
…it was the pronouncement of sentence ... that constituted the judgment of the court.
Treatment trajectory · 1969 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1969
1997
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Paul C. \Paulie\" Villano"
(2×)
it was the pronouncement of sentence ... that constituted the judgment of the court.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Paul C. Villano
it was the pronouncement of sentence ... that constituted the judgment of the court.
discussed
Cited "see"
Graybill v. State
See Borum v. United States, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 147 , 409 F.2d 433, 439-441 (1967), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 916 , 89 S.Ct. 1765 , 23 L.Ed.2d 230 (1969); Gilliam v. United States, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 103 , 269 F.2d 770 (1959), dealing with Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, substantially the same as the Alaska rule.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hughes v. United States
See Borum v. United States, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 147 , 409 F.2d 433 (1967), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 916 , 89 S.Ct. 1765 , 23 L.Ed.2d 230 (1969); Bailey v. United States, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 82 , 405 F.2d 1352 (1968); and compare with Coltrane v. United States, 135 U.S.App.D.C. 295 , 418 F.2d 1131 (1969); United States v. Bryant, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 124 , 420 F.2d 1327 (1969).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. David Wenger
See Borum v. United States, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 147 , 409 F.2d 433, 439-441 (1967), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 916 , 89 S.Ct. 1765 , 23 L.Ed.2d 230 (1969); 2 Wright, Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Henry Monroe v. United States
See United States v. Hart, 2 Cir. 1969, 407 F.2d 1087 , cert. denied 395 U.S. 916 , 89 S.Ct. 1766 , 23 L.Ed.2d 231 (1969); Woodward v. United States, D.C.Cir.1970, 429 F.2d 716 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Michael Peter Evanchik, Howard John Critzman, Carl Pugliese, and Thomas Sobeck
See United States v. Hart, 407 F.2d 1087 (2d Cir., cert. denied 395 U.S. 916 , 89 S.Ct. 1766 , 23 L.Ed.2d 231 (1969)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Maher v. the State of Wyoming
Although we do not need to decide the exact moment when the district court’s power to correct its original sentence becomes limited, it has been suggested that it occurs when the defendant passes from “judicial custody for purposes of trial and sentence into executive custody for execution of sentence.” 114 F.2d at 504 ; see also Borum v. United States, 409 F.2d 433 , 441 n. 36 (D.C.Cir.1967), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 916 , 89 S.Ct. 1765 , 23 L.Ed.2d 230 (1969) (which distinguishes between the temporary custody of the judiciary which is exercised while in the courthouse and the actual conf…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Patrick Henry Earley
(2×)
United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 929 (10th Cir.1982) (judge may increase sentence before defendant begins to serve it); United States v. Preston, 634 F.2d 1285, 1294 (10th Cir.1980) (settled law that "when the original sentencing process is construed to be a continuing one, where the defendant has not yet left the courtroom or is returned to the courtroom the same day, the trial judge may alter the sentence to correct a misstatement"); see also Borum v. United States, 409 F.2d 433 (D.C.Cir.1967), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 916 , 89 S.Ct. 1765 , 23 L.Ed.2d 230 (1969). 16 Recently, this approa…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Thompson v. Carlson
See Schultz v. United States, 384 F.2d 374, 375 (5th Cir. 1967); see also Borum v. United States, 409 F.2d 433, 440 (D.C.Cir.1967), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 916 , 89 S.Ct. 1765 , 23 L.Ed.2d 230 (1969) (It is a violation of the constitutional prohibition against defendants being twice punished for the same offense for the sentencing court to clarify its silence as to the type of sentences it imposed by determining they are consecutive); A. Campbell, Law of Sentencing 249-50 (1978) (Where the sentencing court is silent as to whether multiple sentences run consecutively or concurrently, the judicia…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Thompson v. Carlson
The four Justices who concurred in the judgment would have required the trial judge to include a statement "which makes clear that he considered the provisions of the Act, weighed the treatment option available, and decided in light of his familiarity with the offender that he would not derive benefit from treatment under the Act" Id. at 453 , 94 S.Ct. at 3057 7 See also In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 532 F.2d 410 (5th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 924 , 97 S.Ct. 324 , 50 L.Ed.2d 292 (1976), where the court affirmed a civil contempt citation which suspended the running of the YCA s…
Justice
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 1775.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 19, 1969.
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Jerome M. Feit, and Edward Fenig for the United States.
Published
Citer courts: Tenth Circuit (3)
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.