Opinion ID: 349452
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Salley

Text: 48 Appellant Salley's claim regarding his sentence stems from the fact that his previous conviction in the Tramunti case was reversed on appeal, with this court granting his request for a new trial. See 513 F.2d at 1116-17. That new trial led to the conspiracy conviction being reviewed on this appeal. In Tramunti, Salley was given a five-year prison sentence plus three years' special parole; Judge Duffy imposed the same sentence (with credit for time previously served) following Salley's conviction in the instant case, see note 1 supra. Salley now argues that his sentence here was in effect a more severe sentence than the one previously imposed, in violation of the rule of North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969), because (i)t is possible that the defendant may not receive the same consideration for parole he would have received had he remained in confinement under the (Tramunti ) conviction, rather than appealing and obtaining a reversal. This claim is obviously wholly speculative, and even as a prediction its force is vitiated by Judge Duffy's on-the-record concern that Salley be considered for parole at the earliest time. If it later turns out that there is some different standard for parole prevailing by virtue of Salley's appeal and new sentence, Salley will be able to seek relief at that time under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.