Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Earl Kill Smith v. United States, 250 F.2d 37, 4th Cir. (1958)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views1 page
    Earl Kill Smith appealed the denial of his motion to correct his sentence for bank robbery. Smith had pleaded guilty to an indictment charging bank robbery and putting lives in jeopardy through use of a dangerous weapon. Smith was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. On appeal, Smith argued his sentence was improper because the dangerous weapon was not specifically described in the indictment. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, finding the indictment properly charged the crime using the language of the statute and that specifying the dangerous weapon was not required.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1958-03-03 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 250 F.2d 37 Docket: 7464_1

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Earl Kill Smith appealed the denial of his motion to correct his sentence for bank robbery. Smith had pleaded guilty to an indictment charging bank robbery and putting lives in jeopardy through use of a dangerous weapon. Smith was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. On appeal, Smith argued his sentence was improper because the dangerous weapon was not specifically described in the indictment. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, finding the indictment properly charged the crime using the language of the statute and that specifying the dangerous weapon was not required.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    11 views1 page

    Earl Kill Smith v. United States, 250 F.2d 37, 4th Cir. (1958)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Earl Kill Smith appealed the denial of his motion to correct his sentence for bank robbery. Smith had pleaded guilty to an indictment charging bank robbery and putting lives in jeopardy through use of a dangerous weapon. Smith was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. On appeal, Smith argued his sentence was improper because the dangerous weapon was not specifically described in the indictment. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, finding the indictment properly charged the crime using the language of the statute and that specifying the dangerous weapon was not required.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    250 F.

    2d 37

    Earl Kill SMITH, Appellant,


    v.
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
    No. 7464.

    United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.


    Argued Nov. 7, 1957.
    Decided Nov. 13, 1957.
    Writ of Certiorari Denied March 3, 1958.
    See 78 S.Ct.

    Mathias J. DeVito, Baltimore, Md., for appellant.


    Earl Kill Smith, pro se, on brief, and John R. Hargrove, Asst. U.S. Atty.,
    Baltimore, Md. (Leon H. A. Pierson, U.S. Atty., Baltimore, Md., on brief),
    for appellee.
    Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOBELOFF and HAYNSWORTH,
    Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.

    This is an appeal from denial of a motion, made under Rule 35 of the Rules of
    Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C., to correct the sentence in a criminal case.
    Appellant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging bank robbery and that in
    perpetrating the robbery he put in jeopardy the lives of named persons 'by the
    use of a dangerous weapon'. He was sentenced to a term of twenty-five years
    imprisonment and to pay a fine of $10,000. He complains of this sentence on
    the ground that the 'dangerous' weapon was not more specifically described in
    the indictment. The point is without merit for reasons adequately stated in the
    opinion of the District Judge. United States v. McGann, 150 F.Supp. 463. The
    crime was charged in the language of the statute (18 U.S.C. 2113(d)); and it is
    well settled that this is sufficient.

    Affirmed.

    You might also like