Court Opinion

ID: 9447928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:17:54.873378+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:14.156501
License: Public Domain

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit' Judge
(concurring).
The Act under which defendant Keane was convicted provides punishment by a fine of not more than $10,000, or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both. 18 U.S.C.A. § 286. In view of the extensiveness of the fraud perpetrated on the government, as disclosed by the record, the district court imposed a sentence of one-half of the maximum punishment fixed by Congress. Under the law, this sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment. Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386, 393, 78 S.Ct. 1280, 2 L.Ed.2d 1405; United States v. Coduto, 7 Cir., 284 F.2d 464, certiorari denied 81 S.Ct. 1027.
By the terms of the Act, Congress has delegated to the district court authority to fix sentences according to the facts in each case. It is apparent that the sentences thus imposed will differ as the facts bearing on each defendant differ. Thus it is inherent in the Act that differences in sentences are to be expected. But such a difference is not a disparity, in the sense that the word disparity indicates an improper exercise of the sentencing power. All men are expected to wear shoes to fit their feet. There is therefore a difference in the sizes of shoes worn by men, but there is no disparity.
In addition, I hesitate, as an appeals court judge, to question the sentencing of a defendant by a district judge who has presided at a trial and who has had the advantage of observing the demeanor of the defendant, including his contrition or the absence thereof, and who may have had available a presentence report on the *288defendant, which does not appear in the record before us.
This is not the rare case where it appears from the record that the district court has acted arbitrarily in imposing sentence.