Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gino ROSCIANO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1974-07-18
Citations: 499 F.2d 173
Docket Number: No. 73-1666
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gino ROSCIANO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SWYGERT, Chief Judge, HASTINGS, Senior Circuit Judge, and FAIRCHILD, CUMMINGS, PELL, STEVENS, SPRECHER and TONE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 499
Pages: 173–179

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gino ROSCIANO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 73-1666.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued June 13, 1974.
Decided July 18, 1974.
Gerald M. Chapman, Themis Anagnost, Chicago, 111., for defendant-appellant.
James R. Thompson, U. S. Atty., Ann P. Sheldon, Gary L. Starkman, Asst. U. S. Attys., Chicago, 111., for plaintiffappellee.
Before SWYGERT, Chief Judge, HASTINGS, Senior Circuit Judge, and FAIRCHILD, CUMMINGS, PELL, STEVENS, SPRECHER and TONE, Circuit Judges.
Since neither Chief Judge Swygert nor Judge Sprecher was a member of the panel in United States v. Fawcett, their concurrence in this dissent is not intended to express any views with respect to the dissent in that case which is referred to in footnote 4 and attached as an appendix,

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This matter came before us as a result of our May 2, 1974, order granting an en banc rehearing of the panel decision herein reported at 499 F.2d 166. The question involved is whether a district judge, who has not been requested by counsel to do so, is nevertheless required by Rule 32(c)(1) of the present Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to give explicit reasons for his denial of a presentence report before imposing sentence after considering mitigating factors. The panel decision is not in conflict with any previous decision of this Court.
The function of en banc hearings is not to review alleged errors for the benefit of losing litigants. Western Pacific R. R. Corp. v. Western Pacific R. R. Co., 345 U.S. 247, 256-259, 73 S.Ct. 656, 97 L.Ed. 986; F.R.A.P. 35(b). Even so, it may not be inappropriate to note that after a sentence reduction hearing, defendant was accorded the possibility of immediate parole under 18 U.S.C. § 4208(a)(2). The Government has advised us that on his prison entry, the Parole Board will be given information equivalent to that in a presentence report. Accordingly, the importance of the case even to defendant is reduced.
Barring some Congressional delay, effective August 1, 1974, an amendment to Criminal Rule 32(c)(1) will require presentence reports "unless the court otherwise directs for reasons stated on the record." No decision in this case will control under the proposed rule, so that very few future cases will be affected. Similarly, any decision here will affect few past cases, because Rule 35 imposes a 120-day limitations period on motions to correct sentences imposed in an illegal manner.
Consequently, en banc hearing is not necessary to maintain uniformity of our decisions, and the case is not of exceptional importance. See F.R.A.P. 35(a). We conclude that the rehearing en banc was improvidently ordered. Hence our order of May 2, 1974, is withdrawn.