# Robert Michael Woosley v. United States

> Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · April 24, 1973 · 478 F.2d 139

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9459471

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert Michael WOOSLEY, Defendant-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 24, 1973
- **Citations:** 478 F.2d 139; 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10333
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Matthes
- **Judges:** Oosterhout, Matthes, Van Oosterhout, Mehaffy, Gibson, Lay, Heaney, Bright, Ross, Stephenson
- **Cited by:** 155 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9459471

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that mechanical sentencing is not appropriate because sound discretion requires consideration of all the circumstances of the crime and the sentencing judge is authorized, if not required, to consider all of the mitigating circumstances involved because sentences must …
- discussing 1891 statute and noting that Supreme Court support for this proposition "is pure dicta"
- finding sentence within statutory parameters “disproportionate”

## Opinion text

MATTHES, Chief Judge
(concurring) .
After weighty consideration of all relevant circumstances I have concluded to concur in the majority opinion.
Recognizing the firmly entrenched rule that appellate courts generally will not interfere with the sentence imposed if it is within statutory limits, I am nevertheless persuaded to conclude that, like many rules, it has exceptions. This case is the exceptional one justifying remedial action.
It is hardly debatable that implicit in the imposition of a sentence is the exercise of sound discretion by the sentencing judge. Such exercise encompasses consideration of all relevant factors such as the nature of the offense, the history and background of the defendant, and of course the interest and concerns of society, to mention only a few.
I have been unable to escape the conclusion that the maximum sentence imposed here was the product of an inflexible policy rigidly applied to all offenders of the Selective Service Laws. Such a policy is difficult to defend and condone just as imposition of the maximum sentence on every Dyer Act violator regardless of attending circumstances would be subject to condemnation.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9459471. Public record. Not legal advice.