United States v. Charles Francis O'Neill

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Charles Francis O'Neill

478 F.2d 1209, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 9176

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided June 26, 1973·No. 73-1390·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In compliance with the mandate set forth in Anders v. California, 1967, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, we have carefully reviewed this cause in its entirety, and conclude that there is no arguable merit in the appeal. It is therefore ordered, that the motion filed by Jack G. Hand, Jr. Esquire, for leave to withdraw as court-appointed counsel for Appellant is granted, and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Local Rule 20. See also United States v. Mills, 5th Cir. 1971, 446 F.2d 1397; United States v. Minor, 5th Cir. 1971, 444 F.2d 521.

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

PER CURIAM:

In compliance with the mandate set forth in Anders v. California, 1967, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, we have carefully reviewed this cause in its entirety, and conclude that there is no arguable merit in the appeal. It is therefore ordered, that the motion filed by Jack G. Hand, Jr. Esquire, for leave to withdraw as court-appointed counsel for Appellant is granted, and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Local Rule 20. See also United States v. Mills, 5th Cir. 1971, 446 F.2d 1397; United States v. Minor, 5th Cir. 1971, 444 F.2d 521.

United States v. Charles Francis O'Neill, 478 F.2d 1209, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 9176 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

478 F.2d 1209 (United States v. Charles Francis O'Neill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related