UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jacob C. KNUPP, Appellant.
No. 13314.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued Oct. 8, 1970. Decided Sept. 15, 1971.
“The situation would have been different, the court said, if the prisoner had actually been free on parole at the time he was surrendered to the other state.” 298 F.2d at 615-616.
In United States ex rel. Hunke v. Ragen, 158 F.2d 644 (7th Cir. 1947), the court emphasized the inapplicability of Jones v. Rayborn, supra, to the situation here. Its statement of the contention there made exhibits its clear relevance to the case at bar.
“The relator‘s contention is that when the Illinois authorities relinquished him to the state of Wisconsin for prosecution in the latter state, they thereby surrendered and effectually ended their jurisdiction over him. Therefore, says relator, his reconfinement in the state penitentiary was beyond the jurisdiction of the state of Illinois.” 158 F.2d at 645.
In that case, the petitioner had been paroled when he was released by Illinois to Wisconsin to there stand trial for violation of its Wisconsin laws. The Seventh Circuit held that Illinois law must control. It concluded:
“It follows, therefore, that Illinois did not waive or lose its jurisdiction over the relator when it relinquished him to the state of Wisconsin; that he was still subject to the terms of his parole and that the state, upon proof of his violation of the terms of his parole, had the right to rearrest him and again place him in the penitentiary for completion of his sentence.” 158 F.2d at 645.
Petitioner has cited neither reasoning nor authority contrary to the above. We find no rule of law or of common sense for holding that Ohio‘s release of Himes to Kentucky was a pardon or a termination of his duty to continue to conform to the terms of Ohio‘s grant of parole. See Guerrieri v. Maxwell, 174 Ohio St. 40, 44, 186 N.E.2d 614 (1962). In Baker v. Commonwealth, 378 S.W.2d 616 (1964), the Court of Appeals of Kentucky refused to extend its Rayborn rule to the situation presented by the case before us. We read it as authority for our present holding.
Petitioner‘s habeas corpus claim is without merit and the detainer filed by Ohio is valid.
Affirmed.
Brian P. Gettings, U. S. Atty. (C. P. Montgomery, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BOREMAN, BRYAN, WINTER, CRAVEN, and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere before the United States District Court to the charge of filing false quarterly returns in violation of
This Court recently had before it in Baker v. United States, 4 Cir., 388 F.2d 931, the issue of disclosing a presentence report. The constitutional necessity for such a disclosure was there considered and dismissed. We see no reason to disturb that conclusion. Neither Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 68 S.Ct. 1252, 92 L.Ed. 1690 (1948); Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 79 S.Ct. 1400, 3 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1959), nor Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966) require that result. See United States v. Carden, 8 Cir., 428 F.2d 1116.
At the time of sentencing there was apparent uncertainty by the judge concerning a former civil tax fraud suit involving the appellant. It is clear from the record, however, that the nature of that first suit was understood from the beginning by the sentencing judge. The appellant further contends that there might have been errors in the report, of which he is unaware, that influenced the judge adversely. This Court has reviewed the report but can find no detrimental material to which objection might have been made. There were no confidential disclosures or rehabilitative plans for which there could be a need of secrecy. There was, in fact, nothing in the report which need not have been freely disclosed to both appellant and his counsel. In such circumstances, disclosure, when requested, should be favored in order that the appearance of justice will be fostered with a resulting increase in respect for the administration of the law. Thus a swift conclusion would be reached in cases like the one at hand. Even when no copy of the report is sought, the judge might properly sum
The identical issue urged upon this Court is currently being considered by the Judicial Conference of the United States. That body has at its disposal surveys, opinions, and advice of scope and depth which are unavailable to us. Representations made on oral argument coupled with our own personal knowledge of practices within this circuit do not approach an appropriate foundation for such a far-reaching policy decision.
We are aware of the recent proposal concerning presentence reports made by the American Bar Association. The goal of that project is laudable, but we cannot adopt their conclusion without a proper basis for our own evaluation of it. We certainly should not do it in a case in which the report contained no adverse information.
Affirmed.
WINTER, Circuit Judge (concurring specially):
I concur in the judgment of the Court for these reasons: My own examination of the presentence report and the transcript satisfies me that the significant aspects of the report were discussed or alluded to in open court at the trial and at sentencing. They were not controverted by defendant then although the opportunity existed had defendant deemed them untrue; nor is it argued to us now that they were not accurate. There is no reason to believe that the district judge misunderstood them. The remainder of the report, even if untrue, could not have been prejudicial to the defendant.
Otherwise, I persist in the views I expressed in Baker v. United States, 388 F.2d 931 (4 Cir. 1968). See also, Note, The Presentence Report: An Empirical Study Of Its Use In The Federal Criminal Process, 58 Georgetown L.J. 451, 470-475 (1970).