In Nо. 18953, defendant Jess A. Willard was indicted for mail fraud (18 U. S.C. § 1341). In No. 18954, similar charges were brought against Charles R. Kaufman. In each case, the indictment contained seven counts arising out of thе same transactions. After various discovery procedures, each defendаnt entered a plea of guilty as to Count 1. The United States moved to dismiss the other six counts, and the trial court so ordered.
As the facts and circumstances in each cаse are similar, we have decided to pass upon the contentions and argumеnts of each case in one opinion.
After examining presentenee reports, the District Judge sentenced each defendant to three years’ imprisonment. A motion for probation was denied. 1
As hereinbefore stated, each defendant was indicted on seven counts of alleged mail fraud. The indictment charged that Willard and Kaufman obtained a corporate charter for the “Willard Acceptance Service Company of Illinois.”
It was further charged that the defendants established а corporate checking account, and that stock certificates were sold and the funds thereof were dissipated 2 almost immediately.
It was also alleged that false reрresentations were made to the persons who purchased the stock, and that, as a part of said fraudulent scheme, defendants mailed a letter to the Stoсkyards National Bank, East St. Louis, Illinois.
Each defendant argues before us that the District Court abused its discretion in denying the petitions for probation and in imposing three year sentеnces. We are advised that testimony was taken which was favorable to defendаnts show *816 ing, among other things, no previous criminal record by either defendant. As an example of other favorable testimony, Oliver Norman, a management consultant who had known Willard for five years, testified he always had found him to be honest; that he was a good family man, and that, in his opinion, it would be in the best interest of the community and society that Willard be placed on probation.
The District Court apparently gave considеrable weight to the fact that neither defendant offered to make restitution. Howеver, since Willard could not make good on a 30-day post-dated check, it would not be likely that he would be in a position to make restitution.
Although to the writer of this opiniоn, the sentences imposed might seem severe, that is not the test which must be here applied. It is well established that sentencing judges have a wide discretion in determining the aрpropriate punishment within the limits of various federal statutes and that as a matter оf the appellate court’s supervisory control, the exercise of such discretion will not be disturbed on appeal except on a plain showing of gross аbuse. United States v. Melendez,
Defendant Kaufman argues that the indictment did not sufficiently allege the elements of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341. He claims that the mailing charged in the indictment did not hаve any connection with the alleged violations. We disagree. We think the essentiаl elements of the charge were adequately set forth. See United States v. Smothеrs,
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Notes
. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1341, a maximum fine of $5,000 and five years’ imprisonment cоuld have been imposed.
. The term “dissipated” is not explained or defined. Other evidence disclosed that as of the date of the hearing, both defendants were “broke.” One defendant testified he had no money to pay for his attorney’s legal servicеs. There also was proof that Willard gave a 30-day post-dated check for the purchase of an automobile and that he had been unable to make the check good.