United States v. Denise Brown, in Re Richard A. Hamar

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Denise Brown, in Re Richard A. Hamar

557 F.2d 226

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 27, 1977

Docket77-8193

StatusPublished

This text of 557 F.2d 226 (United States v. Denise Brown, in Re Richard A. Hamar) 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. Denise Brown, in Re Richard A. Hamar, 557 F.2d 226 (9th Cir. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Order Assessing Penalty

Richard A. Hamar, counsel who commenced the appeal, is assessed a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00), to be paid into the Registry of the Clerk of this Court within 28 days from the date of the filing of this order for failure to prosecute the appeal with due diligence.

The penalty is assessed under Rule 46(c), F.R.App.P. There are extenuating circumstances, but he should not have excused himself from “protecting the record.”

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

Order Assessing Penalty

Richard A. Hamar, counsel who commenced the appeal, is assessed a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00), to be paid into the Registry of the Clerk of this Court within 28 days from the date of the filing of this order for failure to prosecute the appeal with due diligence.

The penalty is assessed under Rule 46(c), F.R.App.P. There are extenuating circumstances, but he should not have excused himself from “protecting the record.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

557 F.2d 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-denise-brown-in-re-richard-a-hamar-ca9-1977.