Lorenzo Richard Farnell v. Solicitor-General of the United States United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida

Fifth Circuit

Lorenzo Richard Farnell v. Solicitor-General of the United States United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida

429 F.2d 1318, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8088

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 20, 1970

Docket29324

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 429 F.2d 1318 (Lorenzo Richard Farnell v. Solicitor-General of the United States United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida) 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

Lorenzo Richard Farnell v. Solicitor-General of the United States United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, 429 F.2d 1318, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8088 (5th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant is a federal convict serving a two-year sentence for violating Title 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a). 1 He is not attacking that conviction, but he filed a petition in the court below seeking to have certain evidence produced for his inspection and other evidence suppressed. As the district court stated, motions for discovery and inspection and for suppression of evidence are available prior to trial but not at this late date. Rule 16, F.R.Crim.P.; United States v. Kessler. 2 The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. Pursuant to our Rule 18 this case is decided without oral argument.

2

. 253 F.2a 290 (2d Cir. 1958).

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant is a federal convict serving a two-year sentence for violating Title 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a). 1 He is not attacking that conviction, but he filed a petition in the court below seeking to have certain evidence produced for his inspection and other evidence suppressed. As the district court stated, motions for discovery and inspection and for suppression of evidence are available prior to trial but not at this late date. Rule 16, F.R.Crim.P.; United States v. Kessler. 2 The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. Pursuant to our Rule 18 this case is decided without oral argument.

2

. 253 F.2a 290 (2d Cir. 1958).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

429 F.2d 1318, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lorenzo-richard-farnell-v-solicitor-general-of-the-united-states-united-ca5-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack