United States v. Lee W. Taylor

Sixth Circuit

United States v. Lee W. Taylor

442 F.2d 1341

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 19, 1971

Docket20447

StatusPublished

This text of 442 F.2d 1341 (United States v. Lee W. Taylor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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. Lee W. Taylor, 442 F.2d 1341 (6th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Appellant was convicted in the District Court for the Western District of, Kentucky of embezzling funds of the Rough River Area Council, a Community Action Program funded by the Office of Economic Opportunity, of which appellant was director from April, 1966, until October, 1968. He was sentenced to serve a total of five years imprisonment and to pay a total fine of $20,000.00. On appeal, appellant contends that the District Court erred in denying a motion for a new trial on the ground of incompetent assistance of counsel at trial, and that the District Court erred in denying a motion by present counsel for a thirty day delay in ruling on the motion for a new trial.

Upon consideration of the briefs and record in this case, we find that the appellant’s contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the judgment of conviction should be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Motion to require payment of fine or to post bond denied, 6 Cir., 443 F.2d 31.

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

ORDER

Appellant was convicted in the District Court for the Western District of, Kentucky of embezzling funds of the Rough River Area Council, a Community Action Program funded by the Office of Economic Opportunity, of which appellant was director from April, 1966, until October, 1968. He was sentenced to serve a total of five years imprisonment and to pay a total fine of $20,000.00. On appeal, appellant contends that the District Court erred in denying a motion for a new trial on the ground of incompetent assistance of counsel at trial, and that the District Court erred in denying a motion by present counsel for a thirty day delay in ruling on the motion for a new trial.

Upon consideration of the briefs and record in this case, we find that the appellant’s contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the judgment of conviction should be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Motion to require payment of fine or to post bond denied, 6 Cir., 443 F.2d 31.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

442 F.2d 1341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-lee-w-taylor-ca6-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack