Case Name: KREIN v. UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1922-07-29
Citations: 282 F. 623
Docket Number: No. 6044
Parties: KREIN v. UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 282
Pages: 623–624

Head Matter:
KREIN v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
July 29, 1922.)
No. 6044.
Criminal law <®=»l 147—Trial court’s exercise of discretion In imposing sentence of imprisonment not reviewable on writ of error.
In prosecution for violation of Act Feb. 4, 1SS7. to regulate commerce, the action of the court in imposing, in its discretion, a sentence of imprisonment, is not reviewable by the Circuit Court of Appeals on writ of error.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Iowa; Martin J. Wade, Judge.
Theodore W. Krein was convicted of violating the Act to Regulate Commerce, and brings error.
Affirmed.
Joe R. Lane and C. M. Waterman, both of Davenport, Iowa, for plaintiff in error.
E. G. Moon, U. S. Atty., of Ottumwa, Iowa, and R. Granville Curry, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Before CARLAND, Circuit Judge, and TRIEBER and MUNGER, District Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff in error was jointly indicted with the Muscatine, Burlington & Southern Railroad Company for a violation of the Act to Regulate Commerce. 24 Stat. 379. Both defendants pleaded guilty to three counts of the indictment. The railroad company was fined $1,000 on each of the three counts, and ordered to pay one-half of the costs of the prosecution. Plaintiff in error was fined the sum of $1,000 on each of said counts, and ordered to be imprisoned in the United States penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kan., for a period of one year and one day on each of said counts, the terms of imprisonment to run concurrently.
The fines imposed were the minimum fines provided by law; so was the term of imprisonment. It is assigned as error that the court below abused its discretion in imposing a sentence of imprisonment on plaintiff in error. The record presents nothing that this court can review. Goldberg v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 277 Fed. 211, 220.
Judgment affirmed.
<§=^For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in -all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes