Mose W. Sanders v. Sherman H. Crouse, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary

Tenth Circuit

Mose W. Sanders v. Sherman H. Crouse, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary

429 F.2d 37

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedAugust 24, 1970

Docket160-70_1

StatusPublished

This text of 429 F.2d 37 (Mose W. Sanders v. Sherman H. Crouse, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mose W. Sanders v. Sherman H. Crouse, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary, 429 F.2d 37 (10th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

At the time this case was docketed, Sanders was notified that the court was considering summary affirmance, and thereater appellee filed a motion to affirm, with a supporting memorandum. Sanders has taken the opportunity afforded him to file a memorandum opposing such disposition, and a motion for appointment of counsel, which motion is denied.

Examination of the file and records in this cause prompts the conclusion that a single question is presented which is so unsubstantial as not to warrant further argument. Accordingly, the motion of appellee is granted, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons stated in its Memorandum and Order, 313 F.Supp. 1031 (D.Kan.1969). See also Whiteley v. Meacham, 416 F.2d 36 (10th Cir. 1969); and Pierce v. Wilson, 306 F.Supp. 91 (D. Utah 1969).

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

PER CURIAM.

At the time this case was docketed, Sanders was notified that the court was considering summary affirmance, and thereater appellee filed a motion to affirm, with a supporting memorandum. Sanders has taken the opportunity afforded him to file a memorandum opposing such disposition, and a motion for appointment of counsel, which motion is denied.

Examination of the file and records in this cause prompts the conclusion that a single question is presented which is so unsubstantial as not to warrant further argument. Accordingly, the motion of appellee is granted, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons stated in its Memorandum and Order, 313 F.Supp. 1031 (D.Kan.1969). See also Whiteley v. Meacham, 416 F.2d 36 (10th Cir. 1969); and Pierce v. Wilson, 306 F.Supp. 91 (D. Utah 1969).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

429 F.2d 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mose-w-sanders-v-sherman-h-crouse-warden-kansas-state-penitentiary-ca10-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack