Tillman Overstreet v. United States, 367 F.2d 83 (5th Cir. 1966). · Go Syfert
Search
Tillman Overstreet v. United States, 367 F.2d 83 (5th Cir. 1966). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In re J.P.M., 410 S.W.3d 408 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 83 cited at this page2 citing cases
  • In re J.P.M., 410 S.W.3d 408 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013).
    United States v. McKinney, 53 F.3d 664, 678 (5th Cir.1995); Gonzales v. State, 501 S.W.2d 644, 646 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (citing Overstreet v. United States, 367 F.2d 83, 83 (5th Cir.1966) (per curiam)); see also Jacoby v. State, 227 S.W.3d…
  • in the Matter of J.P.M., No. 04-12-00509-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 31, 2013).
    App. 1973) (citing Overstreet v. United States, 367 F.2d 83, 83 (5th Cir. 1966) (per curiam)); see also Jacoby v. State, 227 S.W.3d 128, 132 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Tillman OVERSTREET, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
23550.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Oct 11, 1966.
367 F.2d 83
Ernest Morgan, U. S. Atty., for appellee.
Wisdom, Bell, Ainsworth.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The conviction of appellant for conspiring to violate the marihuana laws, 21 U.S.C.A. § 176a, was affirmed by this court. Overstreet v. United States, 5 Cir., 1963, 321 F.2d 459, cert. den., 376 U.S. 919, 84 S.Ct. 675, 11 L.Ed.2d 614. We held that there was no error in severing that part of the conspiracy count which rested on a violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 4744(a) [1] from the charge of conspiring to violate 21 U.S.C.A. § 176a. We also held that the evidence warranted the conviction, and that there was no error in treating co-defendants differently from appellant.

It appeared that some of the co-defendants were allowed to plead guilty to conspiring to violate § 4744(a) only, and thus they received sentences shorter in time than the sentence imposed on appellant. This rankles appellant and in his motion, filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, he claims that the differing treatment resulting from the splitting or severing of the conspiracy count denied him equal protection of the laws and due process of law. This contention avails appellant nothing. It is what we decided against him on his appeal from the conviction.

Appellant also contends that this differing treatment coupled with his longer sentence is cruel and unusual punishment. This is a frivolous contention. The sentence is within the maximum provided by law. See Hornbrook v. United States, 5 Cir., 1954, 216 F.2d 112. The District Court was correct in denying appellant’s motion.

Affirmed.

1

. Referred to inadvertently as § 4744(1).