United States v. Rodney George Rafter

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Rodney George Rafter

469 F.2d 91

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 13, 1972

Docket72-2344

StatusPublished

This text of 469 F.2d 91 (United States v. Rodney George Rafter) 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. Rodney George Rafter, 469 F.2d 91 (9th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

George Chula, Jr., of Santa Ana, California, and a member of the bar of this court, is assessed a penalty of $150.00 for failure to prosecute the appeal of Rafter with due diligence. Payment shall be made into the registry of the clerk of the United States District Court for the Central District of California within 14 days from the date of the filing of this order.

Thé order is made pursuant to Rule 46(c), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

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

PER CURIAM:

George Chula, Jr., of Santa Ana, California, and a member of the bar of this court, is assessed a penalty of $150.00 for failure to prosecute the appeal of Rafter with due diligence. Payment shall be made into the registry of the clerk of the United States District Court for the Central District of California within 14 days from the date of the filing of this order.

Thé order is made pursuant to Rule 46(c), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

469 F.2d 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-rodney-george-rafter-ca9-1972.