US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

UNITED STATES V. BEHRENS, 375 U. S. 162 (1963)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 375 U. S. 162 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Behrens, 375 U.S. 162 (1963)

United States v. Behrens

No. 86

Argued October 17, 1963

Decided December 9, 1963

375 U.S. 162


Respondent was convicted in a Federal District Court of an offense punishable under 18 U.S.C. §113(a) by imprisonment for not more than 20 years. The Trial Judge issued an oral order under 18 U.S.C. § 4208(b) committing respondent to the custody of the Attorney General pending receipt of a report from the Bureau of Prisons. His order provided that, after the report was received, respondent's commitment, deemed to be for 20 years, would "be subject to modification in accordance with" § 4208(b). After the report was received, the Trial Court entered an order fixing the period of imprisonment at 5 years and providing that the Board of Parole might decide when respondent should be eligible for parole. Neither respondent nor his counsel was present when this order as entered, and respondent subsequently moved to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Held: The first order under § 4208(b) was a preliminary commitment postponing action as to the final sentence; the later order fixing the sentence at 5 years was an "imposition of sentence," within the meaning of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43; and the District Court erred in fixing final sentence in the absence of respondent and his counsel. Pp. 375 U. S. 162-166.

312 F.2d 223 affirmed.

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™