From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Chewning

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 24, 1972
458 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1972)

Opinion

No. 71-2592.

March 24, 1972.

W. Edward Morgan, Tucson, Ariz., for defendant-appellant.

William C. Smitherman, U.S. Atty., James M. Wilkes, Asst. U.S. Atty., Tucson, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

Before HAMLEY, DUNIWAY and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges.


Chewning appeals from his conviction for a violation of 26 U.S.C. § 4744(a) for which he was sentenced under the Youth Corrections Act. He complains that the district court's reliance on hearsay contained in his presentence report deprived him of due process. The issue has been decided against him. (Williams v. New York (1949) 337 U.S. 241, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337.)

In this case, wholly unlike United States v. Weston (9th Cir. 1971) 448 F.2d 626, 634, the information in the presentence report was not unreliable. To the extent that there was any dispute about the inferences to be drawn from the facts therein recited or the emphasis to be placed on those facts, the matters were fully explored in discussion among the court, Chewning, and Chewning's counsel. On this record there was no abuse of discretion in denying probation and committing Chewning to custody of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 5010(b) and 5017(c).

The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

United States v. Chewning

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 24, 1972
458 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1972)
Case details for

United States v. Chewning

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. DOUGLAS MARCUS CHEWNING…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 24, 1972

Citations

458 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1972)

Citing Cases

United States v. Yates

The court permitted the government to attempt to prove these assertions, but it developed that the statements…

United States v. Wondrack

In order to protect this policy, the federal courts have clearly ruled that a sentencing judge may consider…