Max N. Cecil v. United States of America, Odom S. O'ShieldS v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Max N. Cecil v. United States of America, Odom S. O'ShieldS v. United States

254 F.2d 773

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 22, 1958

Docket13816

StatusPublished

This text of 254 F.2d 773 (Max N. Cecil v. United States of America, Odom S. O'ShieldS 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

Max N. Cecil v. United States of America, Odom S. O'ShieldS v. United States, 254 F.2d 773 (D.C. Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

254 F.2d 773

Max N. CECIL, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Odom S. O'SHIELDS, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 13812.

No. 13816.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued February 10, 1958.

Decided February 27, 1958.

Petition for Rehearing Denied April 22, 1958.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia; Luther W. Youngdahl, Judge.

Mr. Benedict P. Cottone, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court) for appellants. Mr. Ezekiel G. Stoddard, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court) entered an appearance for appellant in No. 13,816. Mr. William R. Perlik, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellant in No. 13,816.

Mr. Harry T. Alexander, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., Lewis Carroll and Joel D. Blackwell, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before FAHY, BASTIAN and BURGER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants were indicted, tried and convicted of the crimes of housebreaking and robbery.

Counsel appointed by this court has conscientiously examined the record and has presented all questions about which some contention could reasonably be made. He has pressed upon us four points admittedly not raised in the District Court1 but which he asks us to consider under the provisions of Rule 52(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A.2

We have carefully examined the record and find no error affecting substantial rights; nor do we, in this case, see any reason to invoke our discretionary function under Rule 52(b).

Affirmed.

Notes:

1

Appellant at the trial level was represented by counsel of his own choosing

2

"Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court."

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

254 F.2d 773

Max N. CECIL, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Odom S. O'SHIELDS, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 13812.

No. 13816.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued February 10, 1958.

Decided February 27, 1958.

Petition for Rehearing Denied April 22, 1958.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia; Luther W. Youngdahl, Judge.

Mr. Benedict P. Cottone, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court) for appellants. Mr. Ezekiel G. Stoddard, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court) entered an appearance for appellant in No. 13,816. Mr. William R. Perlik, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellant in No. 13,816.

Mr. Harry T. Alexander, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., Lewis Carroll and Joel D. Blackwell, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before FAHY, BASTIAN and BURGER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants were indicted, tried and convicted of the crimes of housebreaking and robbery.

Counsel appointed by this court has conscientiously examined the record and has presented all questions about which some contention could reasonably be made. He has pressed upon us four points admittedly not raised in the District Court1 but which he asks us to consider under the provisions of Rule 52(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A.2

We have carefully examined the record and find no error affecting substantial rights; nor do we, in this case, see any reason to invoke our discretionary function under Rule 52(b).

Affirmed.

Notes:

1

Appellant at the trial level was represented by counsel of his own choosing

2

"Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court."

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 F.2d 773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/max-n-cecil-v-united-states-of-america-odom-s-oshi-cadc-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack