United States v. Arthur J. Bartholomew, D/B/A Ecologistics Institute, No. 73-3140 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5 Cir. Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I

491 F.2d 728
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMarch 22, 1974
Docket728
StatusPublished

This text of 491 F.2d 728 (United States v. Arthur J. Bartholomew, D/B/A Ecologistics Institute, No. 73-3140 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5 Cir. Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I) 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
United States v. Arthur J. Bartholomew, D/B/A Ecologistics Institute, No. 73-3140 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5 Cir. Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I, 491 F.2d 728 (5th Cir. 1974).

Opinion

491 F.2d 728

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Arthur J. BARTHOLOMEW, d/b/a Ecologistics Institute,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 73-3140 Summary Calendar.*
*Rule 18, 5 Cir.; Isbell Enterprises, Inc.
v.
Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970,
431 F.2d 409, Part I.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 22, 1974.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; Wm. Terrell Hodges, Judge.

John M. Edman, St. Petersburg, Fla. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.

John L. Briggs, U.S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., Claude H. Tison, Jr., Ronald H. Watson, Asst. U.S. Attys., Tampa, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before BELL, SIMPSON and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Bartholomew was convicted on eighteen counts of a 25-count indictment charging violation of the mail fraud statute, Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341. On appeal Bartholomew alleges error by the district court in that he was (1) denied speedy trial; (2) admitted introduction of statements by appellant in violation of his Miranda rights; (3) improperly admitted records under the Federal Business Records Act, 28 U.S.C. 1732.

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the appellant was given a fair trial and his assertions of error on appeal are without merit. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
491 F.2d 728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-arthur-j-bartholomew-dba-ecologistics-institute-no-ca5-1974.