United States v. Charles Edward Lawrenson

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Charles Edward Lawrenson

334 F.2d 468, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4962

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 22, 1964

Docket9518

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 334 F.2d 468 (United States v. Charles Edward Lawrenson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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. Charles Edward Lawrenson, 334 F.2d 468, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4962 (4th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is another in the steady stream of post conviction motions of various kinds that Lawrenson has filed since his conviction for bank robbery in 1960. His conviction was affirmed in United States v. Lawrenson, 298 F.2d 880 (4 Cir.), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 947, 82 S.Ct. 1594, 8 L.Ed.2d 812 (1962). See United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Lawrenson, 4 Cir., 334 F.2d 464 (1964).

This time the complaint is that the district judge, Chief Judge Thomsen, was biased against him. For that reason he insists that all orders entered by Judge Thomsen be declared null and void. He cites the fact that Judge Thomsen, after an affidavit of prejudice was presented to him in a related civil action, referred that civil action to another judge and argues that, therefore, Judge Thomsen should now set aside any orders which he thereafter entered in the criminal proceedings. As Judge Thomsen points out, the fact that he did assign any or all portions of the civil action to another judge for the reason that his participation in the criminal case made it inadvisable for him to try the civil action constitutes no basis whatsoever for disqualifying himself to hear subsequent motions in the criminal proceedings.

Our examination of the record convinces us that Judge Thomsen committed no impropriety in presiding at the trial and was correct in dismissing the motion now under review.

For the reasons stated above it is ordered that the appeal be docketed in forma pauperis and dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is another in the steady stream of post conviction motions of various kinds that Lawrenson has filed since his conviction for bank robbery in 1960. His conviction was affirmed in United States v. Lawrenson, 298 F.2d 880 (4 Cir.), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 947, 82 S.Ct. 1594, 8 L.Ed.2d 812 (1962). See United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Lawrenson, 4 Cir., 334 F.2d 464 (1964).

This time the complaint is that the district judge, Chief Judge Thomsen, was biased against him. For that reason he insists that all orders entered by Judge Thomsen be declared null and void. He cites the fact that Judge Thomsen, after an affidavit of prejudice was presented to him in a related civil action, referred that civil action to another judge and argues that, therefore, Judge Thomsen should now set aside any orders which he thereafter entered in the criminal proceedings. As Judge Thomsen points out, the fact that he did assign any or all portions of the civil action to another judge for the reason that his participation in the criminal case made it inadvisable for him to try the civil action constitutes no basis whatsoever for disqualifying himself to hear subsequent motions in the criminal proceedings.

Our examination of the record convinces us that Judge Thomsen committed no impropriety in presiding at the trial and was correct in dismissing the motion now under review.

For the reasons stated above it is ordered that the appeal be docketed in forma pauperis and dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

334 F.2d 468, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-charles-edward-lawrenson-ca4-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack