Case Name: UNITED STATES v. REMUS
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1926-04-08
Citations: 4 Ohio Law Abs. 569
Docket Number: No. 4484
Parties: UNITED STATES v. REMUS
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 4
Pages: 569–569

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES v. REMUS
U. S. Appeals, 6th Circuit
No. 4484.
Decided April 8, 1926
Attorneys — Simon Ross, Haveth E. Mau & A. Lee Beaty for U. S.; Lorbach & Garver for Remus; all of Cincinnati.

Opinion:
MOORMAN, C. J.
George Remus was convicted in the District Court of conspiracy to violate the National Prohibition Act and was sentenced to serve two years in the Federal Penitentiary at Atlanta. Later he was charged with another violation and sentenced to serve one year in the Montgomery County Jail. He was released from Atlanta after having served his term and thereupon a mittimus was issued on the sentence to the County Jail.
Remus filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he had' served in full the longer of the two sentences, and in doing so had served concurrently therewith, the one year sentence. The writ was granted and the United States appealed, the Circuit Court holding:
1. Federal courts have power to impose cumulative sentences or to require two or more sentences to be served separately.
2. Where the defendant is serving more than one sentence on a single judgment entry in the same penitentiary, and there is no direction as to order of service, they will be re garded as running concurrently.
3. It does not follow that in every case the judgment need state that sentences shall be cumulative and direct order of service, for concurrent service will not be inferred from absence of directions to the contrary; if there are separate judgment entries and it is beyond the power of the court to require concurrent service.
4. Although the second sentence did not refer to the first, the same judge imposing both, it is not supposed that he intended both to be served concurrently since he did not consider it necessary to say that the jail sentenccshould be served separately from the penitentiary sentence.
5. Since the jail sentence was for a misdemeanor, it could not have been served in the penitentiary.
Judgment reversed.