Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    United States v. Krishna M. Joshi, 838 F.2d 468, 4th Cir. (1987)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Krishna Joshi appealed the denial of his motions under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 and Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 arguing that his sentence was illegal because the district court failed to consider his potential for rehabilitation. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial, noting that the district court has broad discretion in sentencing and Joshi's sentence was within statutory limits. The record showed the district court carefully exercised its sentencing discretion in Joshi's case.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Krishna M. Joshi, 838 F.2d 468, 4th Cir. (1987)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    Krishna Joshi appealed the denial of his motions under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 and Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 arguing that his sentence was illegal because the district court failed to consider his potential for rehabilitation. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial, noting that the district court has broad discretion in sentencing and Joshi's sentence was within statutory limits. The record showed the district court carefully exercised its sentencing discretion in Joshi's case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1987-03-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 838 F.2d 468 Docket: 86-7290

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Krishna Joshi appealed the denial of his motions under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 and Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 arguing that his sentence was illegal because the district court failed to consider his potential for rehabilitation. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial, noting that the district court has broad discretion in sentencing and Joshi's sentence was within statutory limits. The record showed the district court carefully exercised its sentencing discretion in Joshi's case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    3 views2 pages

    United States v. Krishna M. Joshi, 838 F.2d 468, 4th Cir. (1987)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Krishna Joshi appealed the denial of his motions under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 and Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 arguing that his sentence was illegal because the district court failed to consider his potential for rehabilitation. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial, noting that the district court has broad discretion in sentencing and Joshi's sentence was within statutory limits. The record showed the district court carefully exercised its sentencing discretion in Joshi's case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    838 F.

    2d 468
    Unpublished Disposition

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    Krishna M. JOSHI, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 86-7290.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    March 12, 1987.

    Krishna M. Joshi, pro se.


    Mark Alan Berthiaume, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the
    United States Attorney, for appellee.
    Before DONALD RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and
    BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    Krishna M. Joshi, a federal inmate, appeals the denial of his motions brought
    under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 and Fed.R.Crim.P. 35. Joshi argues that his sentence
    is illegal because the district court failed to "individualize" the sentence with
    proper consideration for Joshi's potential for rehabilitation. The district court
    denied Joshi's motions, noting that the sentences were within legal maximum
    limits and imposed with a sound exercise of discretion.

    A federal district court judge has broad discretion in sentencing, and sentences
    imposed which are within statutory limits are generally not subject to appellate
    review. United States v. Schocket, 753 F.2d 336, 341 (4th Cir.1985). Only if
    the district judge grossly abused his discretion or relied on impermissible

    factors such as sex or race would a sentence within statutory limits be


    disturbed. Schocket, 753 F.2d at 341.
    3

    Joshi's only allegation is that the district court failed somehow to


    "individualize" the sentence it imposed. The record clearly reveals, however,
    that Joshi's sentence was the result of a careful exercise of sentencing
    discretion.

    We hold that the district court correctly denied Joshi's Sec. 2255 and Rule 35
    motions. We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues
    recently have been decided authoritatively, and affirm the district court's
    judgment.

    AFFIRMED.

    You might also like