Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google News
Archive Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Dean Nelson Burns, Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 446 F.2d 896
August 17, 1971
Riner E. Deglow, Spokane, Wash., for defendant-appellant.
Dean C. Smith, U. S. Atty., Robert S. Linnell, Asst. U. S. Atty., Yakima, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before DUNIWAY, HUFSTEDLER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Burns was convicted for wilfully failing to register under the Military Selective Service Act of 1967, 50 U.S.C. App. § 462. He contends on appeal that admission of his oral statement to a government agent was improper under the Miranda guidelines, that the statute under which he has been prosecuted is unconstitutional, and that his three-year sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
The record amply supports the district's court's finding that appellant received the Miranda warnings and waived his rights before making his statement.
Appellant's constitutional challenge to the draft statute rests upon arguments that have been rejected by prior decisions of this court. See, e. g. United States v. Gidmark, 440 F.2d 773 (9th Cir. 1971); United States v. Leavy, 422 F.2d 1155 (9th Cir. 1970).
A three-year sentence for violation of 50 U.S.C. App. § 462 does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Little v. United States, 409 F.2d 1343, 1345 (10th Cir. 1969).
The district court has reduced the sentence from three to two years upon appellant's motion. Since appellant had earlier filed a notice of appeal, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion to reduce sentence. United States v. Ellenbogen, 390 F.2d 537 (2d Cir. 1968). Burns will have 120 days after the mandate of this court issues to file a new motion in the district court to reduce sentence. Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The conviction is affirmed.