Mark Michael Jervis v. United States, 382 F.2d 592 (1st Cir. 1967). · Go Syfert
Search
Mark Michael Jervis v. United States, 382 F.2d 592 (1st Cir. 1967). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: United States v. Jude Somerset Hardesty (ca9, 1992-10-22)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jude Somerset Hardesty (2×)
9th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Arron, 551 F.2d 1096, 1098 (7th Cir.1977); United States v. Lee, 500 F.2d 586, 587-88 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1003 , 95 S.Ct. 322 , 42 L.Ed.2d 279 (1974); Anderson v. United States, 405 F.2d 492, 493 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 965 , 89 S.Ct. 1318 , 22 L.Ed.2d 567 (1969); Jervis v. United States, 382 F.2d 592, 593 (1st Cir.1967). 12 Terrovona, on the other hand, stands alone in failing to recognize the rule enunciated in Thornton as the law of the circuit.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jude Somerset Hardesty (2×)
9th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Arron, 551 F.2d 1096, 1098 (7th Cir.1977) (trial court has “inherent power” to impose consecutive sentences) (citing McKee v. United States, 289 F.2d 557 (7th Cir.1961)); United States v. Lee, 500 F.2d 586, 587-88 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1003 , 95 S.Ct. 322 , 42 L.Ed.2d 279 (1974); Anderson v. United States, 405 F.2d 492, 493 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 965 , 89 S.Ct. 1318 , 22 L.Ed.2d 567 (1969); Jervis v. United States, 382 F.2d 592, 593 (1st Cir.1967) (“The federal court had a clear right to recognize and accede to the state custody.”); Green v. United States, 334…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mark Michael JERVIS, Defendant, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
6905_1.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Sep 27, 1967.
382 F.2d 592
Kathleen T. Ryan Dacey, Boston, Mass., by appointment of the Court, for appellant., David M. Roseman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Boston, Mass., with whom Paul F. Markham, U. S. Atty., Boston, Mass., was on brief, for appellee.
Aldrich, Mc-Entee, Coffin.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The defendant, after conviction in the Massachusetts district court, but before sentencing, was arrested in California and charged with an offense allegedly committed after the federal conviction. He was returned here for sentencing, and sentenced for a period of years, “to commence immediately upon the defendant’s discharge from custody in connection with the charge or charges now pending against said defendant in the State of California and upon completion of any prison sentence that the State of California may impose upon said defendant if he is convicted of said charge or charges.”

The defendant contends that this is so indefinite a term that it violates due[*593] process. We concur in the decision in Zerbst v. McPike, 5 Cir., 1938, 97 F.2d 253, and are not satisfied with defendant’s attempt to distinguish it. See, also, Lamb v. Heritage, 5 Cir., 1962, 310 F.2d 71. The federal court had a clear right to recognize and accede to the state custody. See Lavoie v. United States, 1 Cir., 1961, 310 F.2d 117.

Affirmed.