Court Opinion

ID: 9452549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:44:00.546833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:15.698445
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
The defendant-appellant, Herman J. Heidrich, was convicted of tax evasion under 26 U.S.C.A. §.§ 7201 and 7206(1), fined $15,000, and sentenced to imprisonment for ninety days to be followed by probation for nine months. He moved to suspend execution of the confinement part of the sentence on the ground that his wife would suffer a fatal heart attack if he were sent to prison. Heidrich supported this motion with two medical reports on the state of his wife’s health. *541The court below denied the motion to suspend the sentence of confinement, but reduced the confinement from ninety to sixty days.
We hold that the court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Heidrich to sixty days. Under the statute, the court had authority to sentence the defendant to five years in prison. The record clearly shows that the court considered the health of the defendant’s wife. The record fails to support the appellant’s contention that the court, disregarding its discretionary powers undér the probation statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3651, adhered inflexibly to an alleged policy of automatically imposing imprisonment upon those guilty of tax evasion.
The judgment of the Ipwer court is
Affirmed.