Nathan W. Grant v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Nathan W. Grant v. United States

254 F.2d 337, 102 U.S. App. D.C. 418

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 20, 1958

Docket13807

StatusPublished

This text of 254 F.2d 337 (Nathan W. Grant 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

Nathan W. Grant v. United States, 254 F.2d 337, 102 U.S. App. D.C. 418 (D.C. Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, acquitted of a Miller Act charge in one indictment, was found guilty on two counts in a second indictment charging housebreaking and assault. Appellant in his appeal alleges error in the District Court’s order of consolidation, which apparently was entered without objection, on motion of the Government. The offenses involved the same series of acts alleged to have been committed practically simultaneously. We are satisfied that the order of consolidation was not improper.

Were we required to rule, we would reject appellant’s claim that the District Judge abused his discretion in his denial of appellant’s motion for a new trial,

We have considered the other points ably urged by this court’s appointed counsel and find no error affecting substantial rights.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, acquitted of a Miller Act charge in one indictment, was found guilty on two counts in a second indictment charging housebreaking and assault. Appellant in his appeal alleges error in the District Court’s order of consolidation, which apparently was entered without objection, on motion of the Government. The offenses involved the same series of acts alleged to have been committed practically simultaneously. We are satisfied that the order of consolidation was not improper.

Were we required to rule, we would reject appellant’s claim that the District Judge abused his discretion in his denial of appellant’s motion for a new trial,

We have considered the other points ably urged by this court’s appointed counsel and find no error affecting substantial rights.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 F.2d 337, 102 U.S. App. D.C. 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nathan-w-grant-v-united-states-cadc-1958.