Legal Opinion · Concurrence

United States v. Jose Martin Barker

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided April 28, 1982No. 80-1853Published

1ConcurrenceReinhardt, Circuit Judge

I join in the per curiam opinion. However, with respect to the use of the concurrent sentence doctrine,1 I do so reluctantly and only because the defendant did not oppose the government’s suggestion that it be applied.2 I believe that some explanation of the reasons for my reluctance is required.

Since Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969), the law with respect to the concurrent sentence doctrine has been in a state of confusion. In Benton, the Court held that the doctrine does not constitute a jurisdictional bar to review. Id. at 791, 89 S.Ct. at 2060.…

2Cases cited37 opinions

  1. Sibron v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Benton v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Andresen v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Barnes v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  5. United States v. Joseph Alfred TannerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1972

32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API