Peel v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Peel v. United States

408 F.2d 495

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 17, 1969

DocketMisc. No. 1273

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 408 F.2d 495 (Peel v. United States) 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

Peel v. United States, 408 F.2d 495 (5th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

John Winston Peel, represented by privately retained counsel, was convicted upon his plea of guilty of theft from an interstate shipment and conspiracy. After he was sentenced, he stated in a letter to the district judge that he desired “to appeal this sentence.” The judge ordered notice of appeal filed for the appellant, which was done on October 8, 1968.

The appellant has failed either to pay the docketing fee for his appeal, or to return the Affidavit of Financial Status which would enable him to proceed in forma pauperis under the Criminal Justice Act, despite repeated requests from the Clerk of this Court. His counsel filed a motion to withdraw from the case (which has been granted) wherein counsel opines that there is no merit to the appeal.

Pursuant to this Court’s local Rule 9 (b), the appeal is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.

Appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM:

John Winston Peel, represented by privately retained counsel, was convicted upon his plea of guilty of theft from an interstate shipment and conspiracy. After he was sentenced, he stated in a letter to the district judge that he desired “to appeal this sentence.” The judge ordered notice of appeal filed for the appellant, which was done on October 8, 1968.

The appellant has failed either to pay the docketing fee for his appeal, or to return the Affidavit of Financial Status which would enable him to proceed in forma pauperis under the Criminal Justice Act, despite repeated requests from the Clerk of this Court. His counsel filed a motion to withdraw from the case (which has been granted) wherein counsel opines that there is no merit to the appeal.

Pursuant to this Court’s local Rule 9 (b), the appeal is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

408 F.2d 495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peel-v-united-states-ca5-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack