Calvin Lee Stansbury, A/K/A James Lee Stansbury and Wiley Franklin Shallington v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Calvin Lee Stansbury, A/K/A James Lee Stansbury and Wiley Franklin Shallington v. United States

358 F.2d 717, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6642

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 1, 1966

Docket22821_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 358 F.2d 717 (Calvin Lee Stansbury, A/K/A James Lee Stansbury and Wiley Franklin Shallington 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

Calvin Lee Stansbury, A/K/A James Lee Stansbury and Wiley Franklin Shallington v. United States, 358 F.2d 717, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6642 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The supplemental motion of Martin B. Shapiro, Esquire, Court-appointed counsel, for leave to withdraw, filed on March 9, 1966, in the above numbered and entitled cause is hereby granted.

Said counsel, who was counsel for said appellants at their trial, having represented by his supplemental motion that it has been and is his well considered opinion that the trial of the appellants in the District Court was free from error and that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal; and having further represented that on December 30, 1965, he wrote to each of said appellants requesting them to advise him if they had any reason to believe that they did not receive a fair and just trial and as of March 4, 1966, had received no reply, it is therefore

Ordered that no transcript of the trial proceedings shall be prepared at the expense of the United States nor shall other counsel be appointed for such appellants, unless within thirty (30) days from the entry and mailing of this order to appellants they shall specify grounds for appeal, and then only if it shall appear that such grounds are hot frivolous.

It is further ordered that upon the entry of this order a copy thereof shall be sent to each of said appellants by certified mail.

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

PER CURIAM:

The supplemental motion of Martin B. Shapiro, Esquire, Court-appointed counsel, for leave to withdraw, filed on March 9, 1966, in the above numbered and entitled cause is hereby granted.

Said counsel, who was counsel for said appellants at their trial, having represented by his supplemental motion that it has been and is his well considered opinion that the trial of the appellants in the District Court was free from error and that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal; and having further represented that on December 30, 1965, he wrote to each of said appellants requesting them to advise him if they had any reason to believe that they did not receive a fair and just trial and as of March 4, 1966, had received no reply, it is therefore

Ordered that no transcript of the trial proceedings shall be prepared at the expense of the United States nor shall other counsel be appointed for such appellants, unless within thirty (30) days from the entry and mailing of this order to appellants they shall specify grounds for appeal, and then only if it shall appear that such grounds are hot frivolous.

It is further ordered that upon the entry of this order a copy thereof shall be sent to each of said appellants by certified mail.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 F.2d 717, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calvin-lee-stansbury-aka-james-lee-stansbury-and-wiley-franklin-ca5-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack