Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Anthony Salerno Appeal of William Silverman, 542 F.2d 628, 3rd Cir. (1976)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views1 page
    1) The court's decision in this case was based largely on an explicit statement made by the sentencing judge when imposing the sentence, which made this case unique. 2) The court's holding is narrow and does not give sentencing courts the power of a parole board as alleged by the petitioner. 3) The court's decision does allow a district court to correct a sentencing error where guidelines adopted by the Parole Board subsequent to sentencing have changed the meaning of the sentence imposed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1976-10-04 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 542 F.2d 628 Docket: 76-1213

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) The court's decision in this case was based largely on an explicit statement made by the sentencing judge when imposing the sentence, which made this case unique. 2) The court's holding is narrow and does not give sentencing courts the power of a parole board as alleged by the petitioner. 3) The court's decision does allow a district court to correct a sentencing error where guidelines adopted by the Parole Board subsequent to sentencing have changed the meaning of the sentence imposed.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Anthony Salerno Appeal of William Silverman, 542 F.2d 628, 3rd Cir. (1976)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) The court's decision in this case was based largely on an explicit statement made by the sentencing judge when imposing the sentence, which made this case unique. 2) The court's holding is narrow and does not give sentencing courts the power of a parole board as alleged by the petitioner. 3) The court's decision does allow a district court to correct a sentencing error where guidelines adopted by the Parole Board subsequent to sentencing have changed the meaning of the sentence imposed.

    Copyright:

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

    542 F.

    2d 628

    UNITED STATES of America


    v.
    Anthony SALERNO et al.
    Appeal of William SILVERMAN.
    No. 76-1213.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    Third Circuit.
    Oct. 4, 1976.

    Before VAN DUSEN, GIBBONS and ROSENN, Circuit Judges.

    PER CURIAM SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING


    1

    The decision of the court in this case is predicated largely upon the explicit
    statement, quoted at page 1008 of the panel's opinion, 538 F.2d 1005, made by
    the sentencing judge at the time he imposed sentence and it is his statement
    which makes this case unique. Our holding is narrow and does not vest
    sentencing courts, as alleged by the petitioner, "with power of a super parole
    board." Our decision does, however, "permit the district court to correct a
    sentencing error where the import of the judge's sentence has in fact been
    changed by guidelines adopted by the Parole Board . . . subsequent to the
    imposition of that sentence." United States v. White, 540 F.2d 409, at 411 (8th
    Cir., 1976).

    The petition for rehearing, insofar as it may be presumed under our procedures
    to also request panel rehearing, will be denied.

    You might also like