United States v. Claude Birtle

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Claude Birtle

521 F.2d 134

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 7, 1975

Docket75-1234

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 521 F.2d 134 (United States v. Claude Birtle) 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.

Bluebook

United States v. Claude Birtle, 521 F.2d 134 (9th Cir. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

An order of this court having issued on July 7, 1975, directed to Richard G. Sherman, Esq., a member of thé bar of this court, directing him to show cause whether he has prosecuted the appeal in the above action with due diligence, and if not whether some penalty should be imposed upon him under Rule 46(c) Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; and a hearing having been held before the above named panel of judges of the court at which time the respondent, Richard G. Sherman, appeared in person and responded orally; and the matter having been taken under advisement, it is found that respondent did not prosecute the appeal in the above case with the due diligence required of him under his responsibility as an officer of this court.

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that the said Richard G. Sherman pay to the Clerk of this court within 30 days of the date that a copy of this order is filed in the office of the Clerk, the penalty sum of Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($250).

Service of a copy of this order on the respondent will be made by the United States Marshal.

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

ORDER

An order of this court having issued on July 7, 1975, directed to Richard G. Sherman, Esq., a member of thé bar of this court, directing him to show cause whether he has prosecuted the appeal in the above action with due diligence, and if not whether some penalty should be imposed upon him under Rule 46(c) Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; and a hearing having been held before the above named panel of judges of the court at which time the respondent, Richard G. Sherman, appeared in person and responded orally; and the matter having been taken under advisement, it is found that respondent did not prosecute the appeal in the above case with the due diligence required of him under his responsibility as an officer of this court.

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that the said Richard G. Sherman pay to the Clerk of this court within 30 days of the date that a copy of this order is filed in the office of the Clerk, the penalty sum of Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($250).

Service of a copy of this order on the respondent will be made by the United States Marshal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

521 F.2d 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-claude-birtle-ca9-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack