# United States v. Joseph J. Neary

> Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · March 31, 1977 · 552 F.2d 1184

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9463714

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph J. NEARY, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- **Decided:** March 31, 1977
- **Citations:** 552 F.2d 1184; 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 14048
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Pell
- **Judges:** Fairchild, Pell, Steckler
- **Cited by:** 62 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/9463714

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that “evaluation of the character of the defendant and a prediction of future con‐ duct [are] matters which are traditionally left to wide discre‐ tion of a sentencing court”
- noting that “evaluation of the character of the defendant and a prediction of future conduct [are] matters which aré traditionally left to wide discretion of a sentencing court”

## Opinion text

PELL, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached in the opinion authored by Chief Judge Fairchild. Insofar, however, as that opinion is subject to being read as containing an inference that this court is expressing an opinion on the question of constitutional due process in the determination of special offender status under 18 U.S.C § 3575(b), I do not concur.
My lack of concurrence is not intended to express either agreement or disagreement with the scholarly analysis of the question of due process applicable to the determination of special offender status. It simply is that the precise issue, not briefed or argued in this court, is a complex one, intertwined as it is with the entire matter of sentencing, and from my point of view should not have been addressed at all in the present case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9463714. Public record. Not legal advice.