Legal Opinion

Woodruff Pellom v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided September 20, 1963No. 17361_1PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellant has made payment of the docketing fee here in an attempt to have reviewed the District Court’s denial of a motion by him under Rule 35 Fed. Rules of Crim. Proced., 18 U.S.C.A., to “correct an illegal sentence”.

The claim made in his motion was that the imposing of cumulative sentences upon him for violations of 21 U.S.C. § 174, 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a) and 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a) was invalid because the same item of narcotic drugs was involved in the three charges.

The offense charged under § 174 was his fraudulently facilitating the transportation, concealment and sale of the narcotics,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Gore v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  2. Harris v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  3. James Williams v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1961
  4. Woodruff Pellom v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1962

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Woodruff Pellom v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1964
  2. Michael Henley v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1970

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API