United States v. Joyce Loraine Leming, United States of America v. Lash La Rue

sales making the book as are mentioned proof direct to other merely cumulative drugs on dealing their as to McCoy fundamental specific occasions.

other conspiracy vel existence was the

issue argued by properly issue was

non. This the tri- upon by instructed

government and sufficiently notebooks

al court. The evidential hold their We

authenticated. de- prejudice to the outweighed

value

fendants. are affirmed.

Judgments America, STATES

UNITED Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. LEMING,

Joyce Loraine

Defendant-Appellant. America, STATES

UNITED Plaintiff-Appellee, Defendant-Appellant. RUE, LA

Lash 74-2455, 74-2528.

Nos. Appeals, Court States Circuit.

Ninth 4, 1975.

Aug. En Banc Rehearing

Rehearing 13, 1975. Nov.

Denied 22, 1976. March Denied

Certiorari (argued), Cal.,

Robert L. Boles Diego, San Leming. for defendant-appellant (argued), Lewis A. Diego, San Wenzell Cal., for defendant-appellant La Rue. James Meyers, W. Asst. S. Atty., U. brief, the La Rue Strauss, Richard L.E. Asst. U. Atty., S. on the Leming brief, Strauss, Richard E. L. Asst. U. Atty., S. (argued), Harry Steward, D. U. Atty., S. 11, 1973, May OPINION On the information was 844, charging pos- filed under 21 U.S.C. § CARTER, Before Circuit DUNIWAY amphetamine session of 89 tablets. *, District Judges, Judge. and WEIGEL 18, 1973,Leming, represented On June CARTER, Judge: Circuit counsel, to the plea guilty offered a of charge. possible six-year misdemeanor similar conten- appeals, presenting These length of a fully sentence was tions, argument. consolidated for A were explained by the court and the record clear- complaint charging felony was first filed ly voluntary, intelligent shows a and in- defendant; then, against following each plea. accepted formed The court and en- plea bargaining, government filed as to plea. tered the guilty charging each defendant an information substance, possession of a controlled a mis- counsel, Through Leming asked the court demeanor under 844. Each a probationary sentence under 18 U.S.C. pled guilty defendant and was sentenced on 30,1973, 5010(a). July placed On she was misdemeanor; charging information probation 5010(a) under 18 U.S.C. for a imposed sentence was under the Youth Cor- period Among of three years. the condi- rections U.S.C. § tions of probation provisions (1) Each sent to a defendant was insti- laws; obey (2) that she all that she not use tution. possess narcotics, marijuana, LSD or dangerous form, drugs (3) Leming (1) contends the sentence for a she drug program. abuse participate in a term exceeding constitutes infa- that an punishment mous indictment making Before the order final the court required; (2) was sentence under the Youth asked her proposed if the sentence was her deprived Corrections Act of due agreeable to her and she confirmed her equal protection under the law and desire to be so sentenced. punishment. constitutes cruel and unusual year later, 17, 1974, Less than a on June (1) La (2) Rue raises above and charged she was with proba- violation of sentence deprived equal protection him of Hearings tion. were held on June 24 and under the law. 27, 1974,at which she charges admitted the (1) narcotics, (2) use of conviction THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW sentence for forgery. On June Leming 1974, probation was revoked and she was custody sentenced to the of the Attorney 7, 1973, February On a complaint was General 5010(b). under 18 U.S.C. § She charging Leming possession filed with with appeals from this sentence. intent 4.3 approximately distribute heroin, grams grams marijuana, 23.5 Only Leming, later, after proved tablets, amphetamine and 89 a felony in herself incapable complying with the 841(a)(1). violation of 21 U.S.C. § probation conditions of and revocation of probation filed, proceedings were did she The parties stipulated that there was a objection raise a belated for the first time plea bargain to her sentence. file a superseding charging information Leming with a violation of 21 U.S.C. § La Rue possession substance, of a controlled a mis- demeanor, 29, 1973, May and would dismiss On felony complaint was filed charge probation against charging illegal and recommend in ex- La Rue importation change marijuana, informa- of five kilos one-quarter tion. marijuana, ounce of gram and one-tenth

* Stanley Weigel, Honorable Judge, California, United States District Northern District of sitting by designation. a second motion under Rule 35. of 21 U.S.C. After violation heroin, felony, judicial was denied and he took hearing, take the motion 952, 960 and 963. §§ [We appeal. district this of the the records court.] notice of followed. bargaining Plea custody La Rue was in state on a mari- juana charge at the time of as a result On June subject Vallejo, charg- was filed was to a hold from Califor- an information bargaining, nia, one-quarter involving conspiracy, burglary and of possession Rue with ing La property. Proceedings pend- of her- theft of gram marijuana, one-tenth ounce of Reno, ing Nevada, Army a marijuana, misde- and in both oin, kilos of and five and the trial court ex- Corps. 844. On Marine under 21 U.S.C. § meanor plained from the in- that the federal sentence judge struck to La Rue the district date charges. kilos of must run to the state the reference to the five consecutive formation plea bargaining, part not as marijuana, presented questions We do not reach the importa- Rue admitted because La but defendants, hold that as to each by since we amounts of contraband tion of the small intelligent and know- them there was an kilos. La the five knowledge of denied ing right to an indictment as any waiver of counsel, a offered Rue, by represented approved part plea bargaining, by of the remain- possession guilty plea court, voluntary understanding in the informa- listed of the contraband der these cir- plea guilty by each. Under tion. attack the they may cumstances not validi- the Youth ty court of of the sentences under Correc- by the fully Rue was advised La the Youth Act. length of tions six-year possible shows a clearly the record sentence and Brady In 397 plea. and informed intelligent voluntary, 742, 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 90 U.S. S.Ct. guilty plea and after accepted the The court stated that a (1970), Supreme Court felony complaint. dismissed by fully aware plea guilty “entered govern- plea bargain, part As consequences, including the of the direct than a for more not to ask agreed ment made to actual value of commitments recommend and would one-year sentence court, his own prosecutor, by him 18 sentence under against an indeterminate counsel, unless induced must stand agreement no 5010(b). There was U.S.C. § . misrepresentation threats . . . probationary to a recommendation 755, Id. at 90 improper promises].” [or 5010(a). The 18 U.S.C. § sentence under added). Once such (emphasis S.Ct. at 1472 court was not provided agreement following plea fair is entered and the court to the recommendation “tied” into and ac- knowingly entered bargaining although La Rue expressly informed “may not thereafter cepted, the defendant attorney and La Rue’s both the relating independent claims raise against recommend agreed to had rights that oc- deprivation of constitutional im- the court could still § entry guilty plea.” prior to the curred counsel, Through his sentence. pose that 258, 267, Henderson, 93 411 U.S. Tollett v. sen- probationary for a asked defendant 1608, 235 1602, S.Ct. 5010(a). tence origi had been each defendant Here 3,1973, Rue was sentenced La August On felony. Pursuant to nally charged with a Act, 18 under the Youth Corrections charging bargaining, the information Attorney custody of 5010(b), to the felony com filed and misdemeanor was and su- treatment appropriate General defendant, through Each plaint dismissed. pervision. Youth Act counsel, probationary asked 5010(a). Each 18 U.S.C. § motion sentence under then filed his first La Rue were not hands 35, was told that the court’s Rule F.R. sentence under correct his under 18 U.S.C. ap- tied in a sentence imposing and he did It was denied Crim.P. 5010(b). 15,1974, he filed Thereafter, May peal.

650 bargains

Each defendant desired to avoid the felo- pleaded guilty. Tollett v. ny charge. hoped get probation Each Henderson, 258, 1602, 411 93 36 U.S. S.Ct. fact, (Leming the Youth Act. (1973), Young Choy L.Ed.2d 235 originally probationary received a sen- 64 1963) F.2d tence.) major Each received the matter support said to “directly”; the result for, bargained felony the dismissal of the the trilogy Brady charges and a Youth Act sentence. Each 742, 1463, U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 747 defendant, represented by competent coun- (1970), Richardson, McMann v. 397 U.S. sel, by the carefully was advised court of (1970), S.Ct. 25 L.Ed.2d 763 possible rights his or her term of Carolina, Parker v. North imprisonment (1970) 25 L.Ed.2d 785 is also Act. Neither defendant now attack upon. relied his or her sentence under the Youth Correc- Brady What Tollett trilogy and the hold Young tions Act. v. United Chow person is that a who convicts himself out of States, 64, (9 1963). 322 F.2d 65-66 Cir. his own mouth may not complain later that trilogy Brady The government, devices, left to its own Richardson, 759, supra, McMann v. 397 U.S. would not have been able to convict him in 1441, (1970), 90 S.Ct. 25 L.Ed.2d 763 accord guilty with the rules. A plea re- Carolina, 790, Parker v. North 397 90 U.S. places superfluous and makes the govern- 1458, (1970), 25 785 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d concern- process ment investigation prosecu- ing voluntary, effect of a binding in- tion. Constitutional defects in process that plea guilty represented formed when by are therefore irrelevant to the issue of counsel, competent by analogy, supports our guilt; their existence does impugn not “the Young decision. Tollett Hee Choy di- accuracy of the defendant’s admission that rectly support the decision. he McMann, committed the crime.” supra, 773, 397 judgments also,

The U.S. at 90 at are affirmed. S.Ct. 1450. See Brady, supra, 757, 758, 397 at U.S. 90 S.Ct. 1463, Therefore, 25 L.Ed.2d 747. such such WEIGEL, Judge (dissenting). District grounds defects shall not be vacating respectfully I dissent. The effect of the guilty plea, voluntarily and intelligently majority prison decision to condone a is Tollett, supra, made. 411 at U.S. sentence in excess of maximum of one S.Ct. 36 L.Ed.2d 235. But that rea- year specified by the relevant statute. soning, applies process prov- which to the Appellants are provi confined under the ing guilt, apply does not to the process of sions of the Youth Corrections 18 punishing. seq., possible U.S.C. 5005 et six § A guilty plea superfluous does not make term.1 The maximum term had been government’s duty apply punishment to as adults is one prison.2 in in conformity with law the Constitu- They show that Youth Act con tion; and there nothing self-eontradicto- finement is in from way no different ordi ry about admitting guilt insisting and then nary prison; they argue that their six on being punished fairly. reasoning The year liability therefore de Tollett, which constitutional deals with at- prives process equal pro them of due validity tacks on the defendant of his tection. own guilty plea, necessarily does not extend to on validity constitutional attacks

I imposed by judge; and the ma- majority appellants The jority holds expan- offers no reason for such an not plea raise that because made issue reading, though sive it will greatly affect 5010(b); 5017(c). 1. 18 U.S.C. 844(a). 2. 21 U.S.C. § I to an sentence. subjected unconditional plead who defendants rights of criminal law, advantage no can see no reason guilty. bargains. side, allowing such to terms. apply Moreover, does Tollett other case Choy, supra, the Young Hee guilty explains opinion “[A] The opinion, deserves majority in the relied on events chain of in the a break represents Young Hee Choy, In brief discussion. proc- the criminal it in preceded has which challenge raised constitutional (em- defendant at 1608 93 S.Ct. ess,” 411 U.S. at here. The court did appellants’ waiv- similar to limits the clearly it added), and phasis waiver, the constitu- relat- not find reached to “claims guilty in a inherent er merits, on rejecting on the it tional issue constitutional ing deprivation Cunningham the basis of entry of prior that occurred rights 1968), F.2d 467 and Carter added). 256 (emphasis Id. plea.” guilty U.S.App.D.C. at also See See, at 66 and n. 322 F.2d majority F.2d 283 explanation, Without consti- 7. principle Tollett extends the here arising from claims

tutional right to extend majority Even the if after place takes which punishment, challenges arising Tollett constitutional conviction—after plea and an addi there would punishment, from in the chain.” “break find waiver. case not to in this tional reason rights must be of constitutional A waiver emphasis lays opinion majority Johnson intelligently made. knowingly and engaged in appellants that both the fact Zerbst, 458,464, S.Ct. course, 304 U.S. is the case This, of bargaining. comes as a it L.Ed. 1461 When enter persons who of majority great in it be made guilty plea must at result of 397 U.S. Brady, supra, Cf. pleas. the con 747; understanding of . Tol “with 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 751-52, 90 S.Ct. 11. plea.” of the Fed.R.Crim.P. 261-64, sequences lett, supra, under La both Appellants Leming and Rue an not It does offer 747. up to to they stood could be sentenced finding waiver. that ground independent years six of confinement under that, as part to feel majority seems The they way But had no of Corrections agree to be Act.3 may a defendant bargain, years spend up you in their to could six following case custody. took discussion In No. 74— guilty: pleaded appellant place La Rue before you Do understand? you know the maximum Do THE COURT: Yes, do, Your Honor. THE DEFENDANT: I you impose upon can that the Court sentence II, pp. Reporter’s Transcript, 5-6. Guilty your plea to this of result of as a took following discussion In No. 74— charge? Leming appellant place the Court between Yes, do, Honor. I Your THE DEFENDANT: plea: Leming her entered before sen- What is maximum THE COURT: you what is Do understand THE COURT: tence? you receive as a sentence the maximum Year. One THE DEFENDANT: charge your plea which to this result of charges you year five thou- or It is one THE COURT: eighty-nine possessing am- with fíne, both. or dollar sand phetamine tablets? Also, your age, the Court could because year. LEMING: DEFENDANT One you Cor- the Federal Youth under sentence of what amount? And a fine COURT: THE spend you which case could Act in rections thousand. age, LEMING: Five DEFENDANT though years Act even up under that ma’am, six to your Because of COURT: THE Guilty pleading you charge which are to subject provisions you of the are also Act, you which carries maximum is a misdemeanor could Corrections you prison. years? long Do of one in as six confined for depends you explain that to it that? let understand Now me Yes, sir. you upon LEMING: are sentenced. DEFENDANT how Having maxi- Federal those you mind under the THE COURT: are sentenced If be, you you receive as a on a mum sentences that can can Act—and Youth Corrections your plea your guilty, is it desire result of charge, under misdemeanor give up rights which I have those to waive which Act—in Corrections Federal Youth II upon which crucial fact knowing the challenge: That confine their now base Although 5010(b) calls for “treatment no different from the Act is ment under the At supervision” custody in the of the Act’s draftsm assumption The prison. torney imprisonment, “in lieu of” General en,4 upholding cases the constitu cases shows that the record in these two 5010(b),5 presumably tionality imprisonment confinement was that Youth judges below6 the trial In No. equivalents. functional would offer Act confinement Corrections parties following Leming’s which opportunities conditions and special agreed supplement hearing to a having to the risk of compensate for hearing, record. At required would be time than spend more Daniel called as a Mr. James Wil witness prison. The an adult sentence to His liams of the federal Bureau of Prisons. to refute appellants rely now facts on which testimony, uncontradicted and unchal over one assumption light came to lenged, persons established that under the They can guilty pleas. after entered age of 26 who are sentenced to confinement at the time have understood be said to under the Youth Act find them subject to six they could be plea that just persons selves treated like other prison. years age regular similar who are sentenced to that, majority agree prison According I cannot with terms for like crimes. Tollett, appellants have waived testimony, regardless these his of whether or not Further, I guilty. imposed by pleading their claim Youth Cor place, waiver took it agree assigns cannot that if a rections the Bureau of Prisons knowledge institution, of the conse- adequate young specific was with offender to a standing have quences. appellants oppor These offers treatment and rehabilitation institution, it considered on their claim and have and mixes raise tunities within the Choy, supra, Young young general merits. together See offenders population 322 F.2d at 65-66. within the institution.7 6. See note 3 7. Relevant 5. See Part 4. See United States v. lows: Cong., szynski that information we record, made presentence forth for person ant United States an tablets? plea? stated to stand of A. Q. [Direct R.T., DEFENDANTLEMING: Yes. possession of institution, as to where that 2d Sess. 4 All Well, and enter a —let’s 1974), quoting H.R.Rep.No.2979, prior II infra. you Is it still testimony examination Mr. background right. supra. first of report IV, pp. conviction take, how Now, you your Attorney] eighty-nine and the FBI for (1950). all, of Williams was as fol- 5-6. Hayes, 474 F.2d gather is that determination by information, have stated in person desire to enter example, age we record, designating depend upon Strauss, See also would be sent? to this report amphetamine prior you and from prior a 432-35 Assist- 25—to and so charge such a under- young arrest Dor 81st in- ty, tence; Youth Act? he will be different al for all our an institution we the Youth sentence? ent or alien or what have sentenced as an adult offender or under the volvement in criminal ual. individual. And tional needs quirements A. A. No. We Q. A. No. We Q. Now, Q. programs. whereas determine the if youth difference And then based Yes, If Now, # designations, we you training, counseling, try person facilities Act, sent to a to in is they ^[*] have a to such as begin that designating young person try whether does that go through as put that, can have the benefit of the educational, has been sentenced under ^[*] designations to process opposed regardless whether it’s with. them person counseling youth keep with that is the educa- Lompoc, activity more or you? or not he ^[*] guarantee into a a all of our in the same facility? to an adult sentenced any way and education- as to the sen- vocational ^[*] does make less, on. needs youth, youth has been him that youth it is what individ- # differ- under facili- adult, type the re- to in given in a institution is oversub gram testified to which Williams only differences scribed, sentenced under Youth pro person First, rehabilitation if a these: stitutions, initially. same Youth nally designated category, facility? rect? record ferred designated secure or transferred violates the management problem, ferred selves er ignated an committed but want to sentenced adult? adult or record, yes. tween this facility said—that tence and a young person category, designation distinction under the Youth Act? On 17-18, A. Q. A. Correct. Q. [Cross-examination A. Q. A. A. Q. Q. Q. A. Correct. Q. Q. Q. A. Also A. R.T. Q. [Direct they might FCI, treatment of offenders it was guarantee? If Yes; You ^[******] Now, Yes, They Right. To a But Yes. I indicated This would be the Suppose I believe Mr. Strauss Right. an adult or Right. to a more secure Once to other Act or and the offense. —whether in No. you that means a and, respond make sure examination say, less secure they a Youth Act originally indicated under the he depending, ato between the age group? youth ato rules and so person will either that’s whether to some have a i(s my testimony dependent upon their do. Could will be as the sentenced And when adult that would from 18 74-2455, types youth penitentiary. to—if understanding facility. he was young person programming or whatev- sentences; I understand that sent by type ultimate, if youth be again, then facility? by Mr. Strauss] place always was: person they be sent treatment they forth and didn’t behave sfc facility, facilities? Mr. under same for to guaranteed vol. same persons are does he to a you youth within federal if an individual sentenced as an he can be or not facility? asked are upon Boles] are reformatory designated Act or as an youth facility? Ill, then be trans- would youth s}i age he would be an adult sen- say that —I is that cor- to a is there in a to a more facility in the becomes a pp. given to a somebody what sentenced have the originally you they original facility ‡ be des- youth youth them- trans- youth origi- prior prior this, just you are any age be- in- is ing process say, in treatment will an adult sentence for a similar crime with similar opportunities. a Youth grams that exist in and that adult being given are our FCI’s, able. programs all ever institution same to set he’s interviewed he’s of all given is beneficial to him. he is two individuals—as ple The department, and the inmate and his classification team program. program the identical same because of someone sentenced tion, rather than A. No. Q. youth facility A. None Q. A. A. Correct. A. -byQ. Q. -although Q. A. Yeah. What And [Cross-examination A. Correct. Q. Q. committed to the inmates individual, required youth programs- earlier, necessarily required for youth brought facilities, if the room is put Taking assigned program So it is fair to By Right. If I a Youth Act Now, an adult sentence? ¡fc You mean it would be But up program if background, example, battery law, no, on the may, before the a and other basically, camps. is program full at one whatsoever. if sfc once in an by the mental health in to classification two granted you prisoners a case we of services same opportunity to law both or an adult. adult waiting one law, get priority person is but the people Bureau a both also an have # available, happens sentence and one under years the Bureau of Prisons is of our different what, type someone used the exam- is needs, that all tests say, receive because adult institution like classification though, manager, under to all commitments by Mr. Boles] sentence? penitentiaries, would be institution offer a lot of the are offered the same Youth Act opposed two individuals with list; of the same ‘Jfi It all programs are avail- counseling then, old, institution, of Prisons- facilities, if designated of the same do that? equal age then when an that institution? agree upon the Youth Act they are offered any, areas, and one sentenced in the institu- the education depends participate sf* going and then to the other department, if offered put into a committee, priority difference time, prisoners you and he’s Lompoc in all of age into the s{s he has —let’s inmate which- to, youth, youth, upon same test- have pro- then then first he’s age. are try to penalties chance at heavier punishment has first and Act than Corrections second, person offenders, and openings;8 upon but the imposed are adult the Youth Act who Corrections opportunity escape physical from the might go be a troublemaker turned out to and psychological shocks traumas at- reassignment through longer process ordinary upon serving penal tendant an under adult than a troublemaker obtaining sentence while the benefits of assigned penit to a eventually being before treatment, looking corrective to rehabili- Neither difference has been entiary.9 tation redemption and social restora- case at bar. apply shown to in either (emphasis added). tion. 256 F.2d at 472 Sentences confinement leading rely The in this Circuit cases direct- 5010(b), offend imposed on misdemeanor See, ly Cunningham. g., on Carter and e. ers, challenged on due repeatedly have been States, (9th Eller v. United 327 F.2d 639 grounds, process equal protection based 1964). Cir. depends Each of them on the term on the fact that the maximum reasoning expressed constitutional most longer Act is than simply in Carter: provided maximum for adults the one theory basic Youth Correc- [T]he [the The courts who commit misdemeanors. Act is rehabilitative and in a sense tions] argument. rejected the consistently have this regarded rehabilitation Cunningham are v. Unit leading cases longer comprising pro quo quid States, supra, ed and Carter confinement but under different condi- States, Cunningham and Carter supra. tions and terms than a defendant would have been followed in this Circuit10 undergo prison. in an ordinary F.2d However, premise the central others.11 at 285. every upholding longer case sentences un The evidence in the cases us against Act before der the Youth Corrections due shows, inescapably, premise protection claims of Car- equal has ter Cunningham, Eller, been that “confinement relied on in [under supra, Young equated Choy cannot be with incarcer ] Carter, prison.” supra, supra, ordinary ation in an and Standley v. United added). Cunningham, In (emphasis at 285 F.2d (9th 1963), Cir. is untenable. Con- holding on its observa court based its finement Corrections Act under the Youth tion that the Youth Corrections today may in an be as rehabilitative abso- intended, offend provides youthful for affords lute sense as the draftsmen ers, judge, in the discretion the testimony of Mr. Williams makes it treatment, exactly 74-2455, Ill, whether pp. the same 8. R.T. in No. vol. 21-22. The Youth Act or passage adult? quoted supra. relevant in full in n. 4 Correct; right. 74-2455, Ill, 12-13, pp. vol. R.T. No. Ill, pp. 9. R.T. in No. 13-14. 15-16, 21-22. separation, testimony was: On Rehfield, 10. See United States v. 416 F.2d 273 by Mr. [Cross-examination Boles] (9th 1969), denied, Cir. cert. institution, example, In an like Q. 405; Eller v. United people Lompoc, separation is there between 1964); Young 327 F.2d 639 are sentenced under a Youth Act and who Choy States, (9th v. United 322 F.2d 64 under an adult sentence in those sentenced 1963); States, Standley Cir. 318 they commingled category, (9th 1963). F.2d 700 Cir. together? separation A. No. We make no of in- See, g., States, 11. e. Caldwell v. United 435 facility. They mates in the same have the (10th 1970); F.2d 1079 Guidry Cir. recreation, programs, eating, same and so (5th 1970); 433 F.2d 968 Cir. Foston v. forth. (8th 1968); 389 F.2d 86 Cir. no, then, separations I take it there are Q. Johnson v. United 374 F.2d 966 type

between Youth Act and the other 1967). type of Youth Act? No, separations there are no all. Ill, p. R.T. in No. 22. is not different clear that such confinement incarceration, in its ordinary prison

from BAND OF SANTA ROSA INDIANS et conditions, al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, nor in rehabilitative and general nor in share of opportunities, corrective shocks and trau physical psychological al., KINGS COUNTY et is, therefore, pro quid quo mas. There no Defendants-Appellants. longer confinement for potentially for the No. 74-1565. under the these two misdemeanor offenders only signifi Act. The United States Court of Appeals, a sentence under cant difference between Ninth Circuit. imprisonment 5010(b) ordinary one of 3, Nov. 1975. 844(a), according to Mr. U.S.C. § Rehearing Rehearing In Banc label. We have is the testimony, Williams’ Denied March accepting dangers been alerted which uncritically the labels of citi the forced confinement

attaches to Gault,

zens, In re young ones. particularly 1, 27-28, 87 S.Ct. policies the current Under as described Mr.

the Bureau of Prisons

Williams, Leming to sentence and La Rue

to confinement under U.S.C. § prison. them to To the extent

to sentence may

their sentences exceed one

confinement, exceed the those sentences

statutory maximum established appellants 844(a), deprive and therefore

of due of law.12 waiver, reach the

Finding no I would that, under the current

merits and conclude Prisons,

policies appel- of the Bureau Due Process

lants’ sentences violate the to the ex-

Clause of the Fifth Amendment

tent exceed one

confinement. Legislative Wilson, Reappraisal, in Need In re

12. Cf. 438 Pa. 264 A.2d Concern Note, (1970). See also The FYCA: Past Am.Crim.L.Rev. 257-58

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Joyce Loraine Leming, United States of America v. Lash La Rue

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Date Published: Mar 22, 1976

Citation: 532 F.2d 647

Docket Number: 74-2455, 74-2528

Court Abbreviation: 9th Cir.