United States v. Robert Nevelle Stone

298 F.2d 441
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 25, 1962
Docket8377_1
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 298 F.2d 441 (United States v. Robert Nevelle Stone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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. Robert Nevelle Stone, 298 F.2d 441 (4th Cir. 1962).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a conviction for conspiracy to steal government property from a Marine base at Cherry Point, North Carolina. The appellant raises a number of questions on this appeal which were not raised below and for which the record in the trial court provides no foundation. The court’s charge, which the appellant attacks, was not objected to at the trial, and the instructions which the appellant says the court should have given were not requested. How prejudice resulted from adverse rulings is not made to appear. The alleged errors in rulings on the evidence, now complained of, apparently were in some instances objected to by co-defendants, but not by this appellant. We are not persuaded that an injustice has been done, nor do we find substantial error warranting our notice. Rule 52(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A.

The appellant filed a motion to be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis and sought an order requiring the Government to pay the costs of the transcript of the testimony in the lower court amounting to some six or seven hundred dollars. A similar motion was addressed to the District Judge who denied it, stating his reasons: that the petitioner has an annual income of approximately $2,-400.00 and that the petitioner’s wife is employed at an annual salary of $4,390.-00. After examining the defendant’s resources and living expenses, the District Judge concluded that the defendant was not unable to pay the cost of his appeal. No facts have been adduced to show error or unreasonableness in the conclusion of the District Judge. The appellant’s motion is denied and the judgment is

Affirmed.

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

Related

Sabino v. Ozuna
303 Neb. 318 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2019)
Sabino v. Genchi Ozuna
928 N.W.2d 778 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2019)
Patti Whitehead v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002
In Re Stephenson
205 B.R. 52 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1997)
Rosales v. State
748 S.W.2d 451 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Williams v. Spencer
455 F. Supp. 205 (D. Maryland, 1978)
United States v. Scharf
354 F. Supp. 450 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1973)
Blair v. District of Columbia
200 A.2d 93 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
298 F.2d 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-robert-nevelle-stone-ca4-1962.