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
The United States, Appellee, v. Wayne Womochil, Appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. - 548 F.2d 224
Submitted Jan. 7, 1977.Decided Jan. 17, 1977
Joseph R. Moore, Omaha, Neb., for appellant.
William E. Zleit, Sp. Atty., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Kansas City, Mo., for appellee; Daniel E. Wherry, U. S. Atty., Omaha, Neb., on brief.
Before LAY, BRIGHT and WEBSTER, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Appellant Wayne Womochil was charged with conducting an illegal gambling business in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1955 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. On April 8, 1976, appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to this charge, which plea was accepted by the district court (Judge Albert G. Schatz, D.Neb.). On June 22, 1976, the court sentenced appellant to be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for imprisonment for a period of one year and one day. 18 U.S.C. § 1955 provides, in part:
(a) Whoever conducts, finances, manages, supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an illegal gambling business shall be fined not more than $20,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
In this appeal, Womochil argues that his sentence is excessive and that it is excessive in comparison to sentences imposed on appellant's codefendants. We have reviewed the sentencing record in this case, including the transcript of appellant's plea of nolo contendere and the presentence report on appellant. We cannot say that Judge Schatz abused his discretion in sentencing appellant to a year and a day. We note that the district court has the power to reduce Womochil's sentence pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35, if it deems such reduction proper.
Affirmed.