United States v. Michael Henley

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Michael Henley

447 F.2d 1402

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided September 16, 1971·No. 71-1557_1·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal from the district court’s denial of Henley’s Rule 35, F.R.Cr.P., motion challenges that Court’s imposition of consecutive sentences for the offenses of which he was convicted. This Court has already rejected the identical contention raised herein upon a previous appeal filed by the appellant. Henley v. United States, 5th Cir. 1970, 433 F.2d 960. Accordingly, the district court’s denial of relief is affirmed. 1

1

. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s local Rule 9(c) (2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 5th Cir. 1969, 412 F.2d 981.

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

PER CURIAM:

This appeal from the district court’s denial of Henley’s Rule 35, F.R.Cr.P., motion challenges that Court’s imposition of consecutive sentences for the offenses of which he was convicted. This Court has already rejected the identical contention raised herein upon a previous appeal filed by the appellant. Henley v. United States, 5th Cir. 1970, 433 F.2d 960. Accordingly, the district court’s denial of relief is affirmed. 1

1

. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s local Rule 9(c) (2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 5th Cir. 1969, 412 F.2d 981.

United States v. Michael Henley, 447 F.2d 1402 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

447 F.2d 1402 (United States v. Michael Henley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related