Frank Young v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Frank Young v. United States

267 F.2d 692, 105 U.S. App. D.C. 415, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3747

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 4, 1959

Docket14288

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 267 F.2d 692 (Frank Young v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frank Young v. United States, 267 F.2d 692, 105 U.S. App. D.C. 415, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3747 (D.C. Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of a narcotics violation. We affirm because we find no error affecting substantial rights.

We do not think the appeal is “plainly frivolous.” Ellis v. United States, 1958, 356 U.S. 674, 78 S.Ct. 974, 2 L.Ed.2d 1060. Neither did the District Court or the United States Attorney. The District Court granted leave to appeal m forma pauperis and the United States Attorney did not oppose this action.

Frivolousness is a ground for dismissing an appeal in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (1952), and also a prepaid appeal under Rule 39, Fed.R.Crim.P., 18 U.S.C.A. United States v. Johnson, 1946, 327 U.S. 106, 111, 113, 66 S.Ct. 464, 90 L.Ed. 562; United States v. Peltz, 2 Cir., 1957, 246 F.2d 537; Sykes v. United States, 4 Cir., 1955, 224 F.2d 313. Prepaid appeals are rarely dismissed. The United States Attorney rarely moves to dismiss a docketed appeal. He did not move to dismiss this appeal.

Our views are more fully set forth in Jones v. United States, -U.S.App.D.C. -, 266 F.2d 924, Statement by Circuit Judge Bazelon of his position in voting to grant the petition for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. (Opinion, -U.S.App.D.C. -, 266 F.2d 924, pp. 925-931, filed April 30, 1959).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of a narcotics violation. We affirm because we find no error affecting substantial rights.

We do not think the appeal is “plainly frivolous.” Ellis v. United States, 1958, 356 U.S. 674, 78 S.Ct. 974, 2 L.Ed.2d 1060. Neither did the District Court or the United States Attorney. The District Court granted leave to appeal m forma pauperis and the United States Attorney did not oppose this action.

Frivolousness is a ground for dismissing an appeal in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (1952), and also a prepaid appeal under Rule 39, Fed.R.Crim.P., 18 U.S.C.A. United States v. Johnson, 1946, 327 U.S. 106, 111, 113, 66 S.Ct. 464, 90 L.Ed. 562; United States v. Peltz, 2 Cir., 1957, 246 F.2d 537; Sykes v. United States, 4 Cir., 1955, 224 F.2d 313. Prepaid appeals are rarely dismissed. The United States Attorney rarely moves to dismiss a docketed appeal. He did not move to dismiss this appeal.

Our views are more fully set forth in Jones v. United States, -U.S.App.D.C. -, 266 F.2d 924, Statement by Circuit Judge Bazelon of his position in voting to grant the petition for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. (Opinion, -U.S.App.D.C. -, 266 F.2d 924, pp. 925-931, filed April 30, 1959).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 F.2d 692, 105 U.S. App. D.C. 415, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-young-v-united-states-cadc-1959.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack