United States v. David T. Holt, 704 F.2d 1140 (9th Cir. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. David T. Holt, 704 F.2d 1140 (9th Cir. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. H. Wayne Hayes, Jr., 231 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2000)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1140 cited at this page3 citing cases
  • United States v. H. Wayne Hayes, Jr., 231 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2000).published
    United States v. Gonzales, 765 F.2d 1393, 1396 (9th Cir.1985); United States v. Holt, 704 F.2d 1140, 1140 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam).
  • United States v. R.G. Reynolds, 67 F.3d 310 (9th Cir. 1995).unpublished
    See United States v. Portin, 20 F.3d 1028 , 1029 n. 1 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (district court may correct illegal sentence sua sponte or upon motion under Rule 35); United States v. Holt, 704 F.2d 1140, 1140 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam)…
  • United States v. Joe S. Gonzales, 765 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1985).published
    See, e.g., United States v. Holt, 704 F.2d 1140, 1140 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam) (decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing on a rule 35 motion); United States v. Kouwenhoven, 602 F.2d 234, 238 (9th Cir.1979) (denial of rule 35 motion).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
David T. HOLT, Defendant-Appellant
82-1462.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Apr 27, 1983.
Published opinion
704 F.2d 1140
1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 28508
James Kyle Gee, Henrikson & Gee, Oakland, Cal., for defendant-appellant., Joseph M. Burton, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Goodwin, Kennedy, Alarcon.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The appellant, David T. Holt, contends that the district court was required to hold a hearing on his Rule 35 motion for modification of sentence. Fed.R.Crim.P. 35. The district court’s decision not to hold a hearing in a Rule 35 proceeding will be reversed only when the district court has abused its discretion, United States v. Krueger, 454 F.2d 1154 (9th Cir.1972). Holt has demonstrated no such abuse. The motion and attached affidavits in this case made an ample record, and it does not appear from the appeal that any additional information would have been adduced at an oral hearing.

The case of United States v. Ginzburg, 398 F.2d 52 (3d Cir.1969), is distinguishable, for there the applicable substantive law had changed after sentencing, and a hearing was deemed useful to present additional evidence that might have led to a modification of the sentence.

It may well have been that here, as in many other criminal proceedings, the sentencing phase of the case was the one of most importance to the defendant, and we would have been more comfortable with the matter had the hearing been held. Nevertheless, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion.

AFFIRMED.