Opinion ID: 363041
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Excessiveness of the Sentence.

Text: 47 Finally, defendant argues that the consecutive two-year terms he received on the eighteen counts of mail and wire fraud are excessive. The rule in this court is that (a) sentence imposed by a federal district judge, if within statutory limits, is generally not subject to review. Woosley v. United States, 478 F.2d 139, 141 (8th Cir. 1973) (en banc). Here, each count carried a maximum possible punishment of five years imprisonment. Moss's sentence, therefore, was well within the statutory limit. We note, however, that defendant may still seek reduction of his sentence under Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 48 The consecutive sentences on the mail fraud counts initially ran concurrently with a life sentence on the conspiracy-murder conviction. Because the life sentence has been set aside, the propriety of consecutive sentences for separate mail fraud offenses arising out of essentially a single scheme should be reconsidered by the district court in a Rule 35 proceeding. 49 The judgment of conviction on Counts Two through Nineteen is affirmed; the judgment of conviction on Count One is ordered reversed and the cause is remanded with direction to enter a judgment of acquittal.