United States v. Albert A. Seretti
This text of 754 F.2d 817 (United States v. Albert A. Seretti) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ORDER
Appellant’s petition for appointment of counsel to petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari does not comply with section 3(e) of the Ninth Circuit Revised Provisions for the Representation on Appeal of Persons Financially Unable to Obtain Representation, which requires a petition to “state the grounds for seeking a writ of certiorari and the reasons why the ends of justice require the appointment of counsel.” In spite of this defect, we have reviewed appellant’s case to determine whether there are any issues that might be presented to the Supreme Court for review. We conclude that a petition for certiorari would be frivolous. Appointment of counsel in a case such as this is discretionary, and is to be made “as the interests of justice may dictate.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(c) (1982). Since petitioner has no substantial grounds on which to petition for certiorari, appellant’s petition for appointment of counsel is denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
754 F.2d 817, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 28863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-albert-a-seretti-ca9-1985.