Unpublished Dispositionhodges T. Flood, Petitioner-appellant v. United States of America, Respondent-appellee, 835 F.2d 878 (6th Cir. 1987)
Annotate this CaseBefore LIVELY, Chief Judge, CORNELIA G. KENNEDY, Circuit Judge, and JOHN W. PECK, Senior Circuit Judge.
ORDER
This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the record and briefs, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not necessary. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).
This pro se federal prisoner appeals the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. Upon review of the record, we conclude the district court properly denied the motion.
No double jeopardy violation exists in this case because three separate sentences were imposed for three offenses clearly distinct in time, place and manner. See Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333 (1981); United States v. Finazzo, 704 F.2d 300 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1210 (1983). Further, petitioner has not been denied equal protection because 18 U.S.C. § 3569 provides a mechanism for petitioner to secure his release despite his inability to pay the fines imposed.
Accordingly, the district court's judgment is hereby affirmed pursuant to Rule 9(b) (5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
