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.
This is a forma pauperis appeal from a conviction for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312. At the time of trial and sentence appellant was serving a life term in the Kansas State Penitentiary for violation of that state’s habitual criminal law. The only question raised is the validity of the sentence which committed appellant to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States for a period of 5 years, “such sentence to run consecutively to the sentence which he is now serving.” When imposing sentence the trial judge said from the bench that the 5-year sentence was “to begin at the completion of the sentence now being served in the Kansas State Penitentiary.”
Upon the trial and conviction of one already sentenced for another crime, execution of the second sentence may begin when the first terminates. Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 265, 42 S.Ct. 309, 66 L.Ed. 607. A sentence so providing is not void for indefiniteness or uncertainty. Smith v. United States, 10 Cir., 177 F.2d 434, 436; Wall v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 108 F.2d 865, 867; cf. Crawford v. Taylor, 10 Cir., 290 F.2d 197. There is no uncertainty in the intent of the court to impose a 5-year sentence to begin upon release of the defendant from the state penitentiary. Gibson v. Looney, 10 Cir., 258 F.2d 879, 880.
Affirmed.

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