Richards v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Richards v. United States

408 F.2d 802

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 12, 1969

DocketMisc. No. 1282

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 408 F.2d 802 (Richards 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

Richards v. United States, 408 F.2d 802 (5th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, represented by privately-retained counsel, was convicted in the district court of concealing forged securities of the United States, a violation of [803]*80318 U.S.C. § 472, for which he was sentenced to four years imprisonment. Counsel, after filing notice of appeal, requested and was granted leave to withdraw.

Appellant has failed to pay the docketing fee for an appeal or to request leave to appeal in forma pauperis under the Criminal Justice Act, even though informed by this court of his right to do so. The clerk of this court has repeatedly notified appellant of the consequences of his failure to act, but no response has been forthcoming.

Therefore, pursuant to this Court’s Local Rule 9(b), the appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, represented by privately-retained counsel, was convicted in the district court of concealing forged securities of the United States, a violation of [803]*80318 U.S.C. § 472, for which he was sentenced to four years imprisonment. Counsel, after filing notice of appeal, requested and was granted leave to withdraw.

Appellant has failed to pay the docketing fee for an appeal or to request leave to appeal in forma pauperis under the Criminal Justice Act, even though informed by this court of his right to do so. The clerk of this court has repeatedly notified appellant of the consequences of his failure to act, but no response has been forthcoming.

Therefore, pursuant to this Court’s Local Rule 9(b), the appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

408 F.2d 802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richards-v-united-states-ca5-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack