Arthur Atherton Moore v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Arthur Atherton Moore v. United States

412 F.2d 229, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11639

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 2, 1969

Docket27472_1

StatusPublished

This text of 412 F.2d 229 (Arthur Atherton Moore v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arthur Atherton Moore v. United States, 412 F.2d 229, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11639 (5th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the motion of the appellee to dismiss the appeal in the above styled and numbered cause, or in the alternative, to grant an extension of time in which a reply brief may be filed, the court is of the opinion that the appeal is frivolous and should be dismissed. By prior order entered by a Judge of this court and filed on May 13, 1969, the péti-tioner’s pro se application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis and his application for the appointment of counsel to represent him on his appeal were denied. Accordingly, the appellant was not permitted to appeal in forma pauperis. He has failed to prosecute the appeal by filing a proper record or appendix as required by Rule 30 F.R.A.P. and as required by the rules of this court. Based upon the record as it now appears in this court, it appears that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous.

Appeal dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the motion of the appellee to dismiss the appeal in the above styled and numbered cause, or in the alternative, to grant an extension of time in which a reply brief may be filed, the court is of the opinion that the appeal is frivolous and should be dismissed. By prior order entered by a Judge of this court and filed on May 13, 1969, the péti-tioner’s pro se application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis and his application for the appointment of counsel to represent him on his appeal were denied. Accordingly, the appellant was not permitted to appeal in forma pauperis. He has failed to prosecute the appeal by filing a proper record or appendix as required by Rule 30 F.R.A.P. and as required by the rules of this court. Based upon the record as it now appears in this court, it appears that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

412 F.2d 229, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-atherton-moore-v-united-states-ca5-1969.