Case Name: Daniel Lee SAPPINGTON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1975-05-19
Citations: 518 F.2d 28
Docket Number: No. 75-1149
Parties: Daniel Lee SAPPINGTON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Judges: Before GIBSON, Chief Judge, and HEANEY and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 518
Pages: 28–29

Head Matter:
Daniel Lee SAPPINGTON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 75-1149.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted May 16, 1975.
Decided May 19, 1975.
Rehearing Denied June 23, 1975.
Larry E. Stead, Director, Prisoners Legal Assistance Project, Marion, 111., for appellant.
Donald J. Stohr, U. S. Atty., and Richard E. Coughlin, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Before GIBSON, Chief Judge, and HEANEY and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Daniel Sappington, in this post-conviction proceeding, seeks to vacate his sentence for failure of the sentencing judge to make an explicit finding that he would not have benefited from treatment under the Federal Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5005 et seq. The petitioner, who was twenty-one years old at the time of conviction and sentence, was sentenced as an adult. The District Court denied relief stating that the "no benefit" finding was implicit in the imposition of the adult sentence.
The Federal Youth Corrections Act requires an explicit "no benefit" finding. Dorszynski v. United States, 418 U.S. 424, 94 S.Ct. 3042, 41 L.Ed.2d 855 (1974). Accordingly, the order of the District Court is reversed with directions that the petitioner's sentence be vacated and his sentence reconsidered. See United States v. Flebotte, 503 F.2d 1057 (4th Cir. 1974); Belgarde v. United States, 503 F.2d 1054 (9th Cir. 1974); Hoyt v. United States, 502 F.2d 562 (5th Cir. 1974).
Reversed and remanded for resentencing.