Gary Milton Lindberg v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Gary Milton Lindberg v. United States

363 F.2d 438, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6399

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 22, 1966

Docket19993

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 363 F.2d 438 (Gary Milton Lindberg v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gary Milton Lindberg v. United States, 363 F.2d 438, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6399 (9th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

With commendable thoroughness and skill, appointed counsel has gleaned from the record a number of trial incidents which counsel urges reflect plain error noticeable under Rule 52(b), Fed. R.Crim.P. Not all of the incidents now complained of involved error. We are satisfied that the remainder, in the context of the record as a whole, did not affect substantial rights or deny defendant a fair trial.

Defendant also complains of the denial of his Rule 21(b) motion for transfer of the proceedings to another district. The defendant did not support his motion with a showing of specific circumstances from which the district court could conclude that the proceeding should be transferred in the interests of justice. Thus, although defendant asserted that *439 defense witnesses were located in the district to which transfer was sought, the witnesses were not named or otherwise described and the nature of their expected testimony was not disclosed. It was not an abuse of discretion to deny a motion based upon so inadequate a showing.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

With commendable thoroughness and skill, appointed counsel has gleaned from the record a number of trial incidents which counsel urges reflect plain error noticeable under Rule 52(b), Fed. R.Crim.P. Not all of the incidents now complained of involved error. We are satisfied that the remainder, in the context of the record as a whole, did not affect substantial rights or deny defendant a fair trial.

Defendant also complains of the denial of his Rule 21(b) motion for transfer of the proceedings to another district. The defendant did not support his motion with a showing of specific circumstances from which the district court could conclude that the proceeding should be transferred in the interests of justice. Thus, although defendant asserted that *439 defense witnesses were located in the district to which transfer was sought, the witnesses were not named or otherwise described and the nature of their expected testimony was not disclosed. It was not an abuse of discretion to deny a motion based upon so inadequate a showing.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

363 F.2d 438, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gary-milton-lindberg-v-united-states-ca9-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack