United States v. William Robert Franck, 917 F.2d 1302 (4th Cir. 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. William Robert Franck, 917 F.2d 1302 (4th Cir. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the subjection of a prisoner to verbal abuse or profanity does not arise to the level of a constitutional deprivation.”
55 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Riddick v. Moore (vawd, 2023-03-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Riddick v. Moore
W.D. Va. · 2023 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the subjection of a prisoner to verbal abuse or profanity does not arise to the level of a constitutional deprivation.
cited Cited "see" In re South Carolina Press Ass'n
4th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See, In re The South Carolina Press Ass’n, et al., 917 F.2d 1302 (4th Cir.1990).
cited Cited "see" In Re the South Carolina Press Association, in Re the South Carolina Press Association the State-Record Company, Inc. The Evening Post Publishing Company the Greenville News-Piedmont Company the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, a Division of the New York Times Company, Incorporated East Coast Newspapers, Incorporated
4th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See, In re The South Carolina Press Ass'n, et al., 917 F.2d 1302 (4th Cir.1990).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Schittler v. Kilgore
W.D. Va. · 2021 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Morrison v. Martin, 755 F. Supp. 683, 687 (E.D.N.C.) (“Words by themselves do not state a constitutional claim, without regard to their nature.”), aff’d, 917 F.2d 1302 (4th Cir. 1990) (unpublished).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bauer v. Dantis
10th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
Collins v. Cundy, 603 F.2d 825, 827 (10th Cir.1979) (idle threats of violence do not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation); see also Morrison v. Martin, 755 F.Supp. 683, 687 (E.D.N.C.) (finding curses or verbal abuse by prison staff not a constitutional violation), aff'd, 917 F.2d 1302 (4th Cir.1990)....
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Schroeder v. Kaplan
9th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Morrison v. Martin, 755 F.Supp. 683, 686 (E.D.N.C.) (occasional deprivation of mattress does not violate Eighth Amendment), aff'd, 917 F.2d 1302 (4th Cir.1990); Blackmon v. Derobertis, 1989 U.S.Dist.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
William Robert Franck
90-6357.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Nov 13, 1990.
917 F.2d 1302
Unpublished
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 78%
Citer courts: W.D. Virginia (1)

917 F.2d 1302
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
William Robert FRANCK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 90-6357.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 29, 1990.
Decided Nov. 13, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR-84-410-M)

William Robert Franck, appellant pro se.

Arthur Friend Fergenson, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Md., for appellee.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, PHILLIPS and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

William Robert Franck, a federal prisoner, brought this Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a) motion alleging that he was unlawfully sentenced to a special parole term.[*] He pled guilty to a violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1) and was sentenced to eight years in prison and a 10-year special parole term pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(b)(1)(A). He alleges that he should not have been sentenced to a special parole term because the special parole term provision of Sec. 841(b)(1)(A) was no longer in effect at the time he was sentenced.

2

The offense to which Franck pled guilty was committed on September 2, 1984. He was sentenced pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(b)(1)(A), which required the imposition of a special parole term for anyone convicted of violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1). The statute was changed on October 12, 1984, to delete the requirement of a special parole term, but because Franck's offense was committed before that date, he was subject to the special parole term requirement. Therefore, he was properly sentenced, and the district court did not err in dismissing his action.

3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.

4

AFFIRMED.

*

Franck's notice of appeal was not filed within 10 days of the district court's order denying the Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 motion, nor was it filed within 10 days of the denial of his motion for reconsideration. However, because Franck challenged the validity of his sentence, we construe the action as a petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255. United States v. Santora, 711 F.2d 41 (5th Cir.1983). Given this consideration, the notice of appeal was timely