James David Williams v. United States

Second Circuit

James David Williams v. United States

306 F.2d 33, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4458

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJuly 17, 1962

DocketDocket 27672

StatusPublished

This text of 306 F.2d 33 (James David Williams v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James David Williams v. United States, 306 F.2d 33, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4458 (2d Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner claims that he was improperly sentenced as a second offender under the narcotics laws. This claim was fully examined below, and a written opinion was filed. The record of his former conviction in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts demonstrates that the claim is a frivolous one.- Petitioner also maintains that miscellaneous prejudicial errors occurred during the trial that culminated in the sentence he seeks to set aside. He was represented by counsel at that trial, and the conviction was affirmed by us in open court, 2 Cir., 282 F.2d 899 (1960).

The moving papers presented to us show that no error was committed by the court below when it denied petitioner’s application for relief.

The application to us to proceed upon appeal in forma pauperis, for the assignment of counsel, and for leave to dispense with an appendix is denied. Inasmuch as the appeal is so frivolous that we would dismiss it if petitioner were represented by counsel, Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674, 78 S.Ct. 974, 2 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1958), Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 82 S.Ct. 917, 8 L.Ed.2d 21 (1962), the appeal is dismissed. United States v. Visconti, 261 F.2d 215 (2 Cir. 1958).

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner claims that he was improperly sentenced as a second offender under the narcotics laws. This claim was fully examined below, and a written opinion was filed. The record of his former conviction in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts demonstrates that the claim is a frivolous one.- Petitioner also maintains that miscellaneous prejudicial errors occurred during the trial that culminated in the sentence he seeks to set aside. He was represented by counsel at that trial, and the conviction was affirmed by us in open court, 2 Cir., 282 F.2d 899 (1960).

The moving papers presented to us show that no error was committed by the court below when it denied petitioner’s application for relief.

The application to us to proceed upon appeal in forma pauperis, for the assignment of counsel, and for leave to dispense with an appendix is denied. Inasmuch as the appeal is so frivolous that we would dismiss it if petitioner were represented by counsel, Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674, 78 S.Ct. 974, 2 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1958), Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 82 S.Ct. 917, 8 L.Ed.2d 21 (1962), the appeal is dismissed. United States v. Visconti, 261 F.2d 215 (2 Cir. 1958).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 F.2d 33, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-david-williams-v-united-states-ca2-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack