Kevin Harper v. United States

217 F.3d 889, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15794, 2000 WL 900177
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedJune 29, 2000
Docket99-6158
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 217 F.3d 889 (Kevin Harper 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
Kevin Harper v. United States, 217 F.3d 889, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15794, 2000 WL 900177 (2d Cir. 2000).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant has filed, pro se, a motion for assignment of counsel. Upon due consideration thereof, it is ORDERED that the motion is denied, without prejudice to renewal of the motion within 30 days of the date of this order, provided that the motion is supported by (1) a statement in detail specifying the issues that appellant intends to present on appeal; and (2) either (a) a transcript of all or the pertinent parts of the trial record, or (b) proof that appellant has ordered the transcripts or has moved in the district court for free transcripts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 753(f), or (c) a statement that the issues appellant intends to present on appeal do not include claims of trial error and hence do not require the above transcripts. If appellant moves for a free transcript, he must provide the district court with a statement detailing the “substantial question[s]” presented by the appeal. See id.

If appellant fails to renew his motion for appointment of counsel within 30 days, supported as described above, the appeal will be dismissed with prejudice.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
217 F.3d 889, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 15794, 2000 WL 900177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kevin-harper-v-united-states-ca2-2000.