Task: songer_sentence

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court conclude that some penalty, excluding the death penalty, was improperly imposed?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed". If the court answered the question in the affirmative, but the error articulated by the court was judged to be harmless, answer "Yes, but error was harmless". 

PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals pro se from the District Court’s denial of his motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1970). Previously he had been convicted of bank robbery on October 10, 1973, and was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment on December 10, 1973.
On appeal that conviction and sentence was affirmed by this court by order dated April 19,1974, in case Nos. 73-2167-68, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari, 419 U.S. 855, 95 S.Ct. 99, 42 L.Ed.2d 87 (1974).
Appellant’s § 2255 motion argued two issues as to which this court granted the government’s motion to affirm the District Court’s decision in an order entered September 10, 1975. The issue which remains in this appeal pertains to appellant’s argument that when sentenced in 1973, he was eligible for sentencing under the Federal Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5010 (1970), and that the court made no express finding that he would not benefit from sentencing under that Act. After the District Judge entered the sentence on December 10, 1973, this court and the United States Supreme Court both decided cases which required express findings of “no benefit” to the defendant where eligibility for sentencing under the Federal Youth Corrections Act existed and its provisions were not employed. Dorszynski v. United States, 418 U.S. 424, 94 S.Ct. 3042, 41 L.Ed.2d 855 (1974); Brooks v. United States, 497 F.2d 1059 (6th Cir. 1974).
Our concern with this case was triggered by the fact that a number of circuits have applied Dorszynski to cases which were final at the time Dorszynski was decided without, however, expressly stating that Dorszynski should be given retroactive effect. On the other hand, the Tenth Circuit has expressly held Dorszynski to have prospective effect only. Jackson v. United States, 510 F.2d 1335 (10th Cir. 1975).
On inspection of the record in this case, we find it to be peculiarly inappropriate for deciding the issue referred to above. In addition to the nature of the crime for which defendant had been convicted and the nature of the sentence thought appropriate by the sentencing judge, we take into account in this regard appellant’s prior record which was before the District Court at the time of sentencing and which was a Juvenile Court record extending from 1963 through 1968, and a continuing record in Kentucky’s Criminal Courts down to the date of the subject bank robbery. If we were to assume Dorszynski should be applied retroactively, remand for resentencing on this record would, we believe, be a meaningless gesture.
The judgment of the District Court as to this issue also is therefore affirmed.
. Sappington v. United States, 518 F.2d 28 (8th Cir. 1975); Belgarde v. United States, 503 F.2d 1054 (9th Cir. 1974); United States v. Flebotte, 503 F.2d 1057 (4th Cir. 1974); Hoyt v. United States, 502 F.2d 562 (5th Cir. 1974).

Question: Did the court conclude that some penalty, excluding the death penalty, was improperly imposed?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Yes, but error was harmless
D. Mixed answer
E. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: A