United States v. Roy Cecil Bolton

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Roy Cecil Bolton

438 F.2d 1219, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11589

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 2, 1971

Docket30680

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 438 F.2d 1219 (United States v. Roy Cecil Bolton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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. Roy Cecil Bolton, 438 F.2d 1219, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11589 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The sole issue in this appeal by Roy Cecil Bolton, who was convicted September 28, 1970 of transporting a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2812, is whether the trial court erred in refusing appellant’s request for a continuance because of the absence of a defense witness. The granting of a continuance until an absent witness can be procured is, of course, within the sound discretion of the district court, and it is not error to deny a requested continuance in the absence of a showing of an abuse of that discretion. United States v. Pierce, 5th Cir. 1969, 411 F.2d 678; Barnes v. United States, 5th Cir. 1967, 374 F.2d 126; Samples v. United States, 5th Cir. 1941, 121 F.2d 263. We have carefully read the record and have not found an indication of that abuse of discretion that would require reversal. Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The sole issue in this appeal by Roy Cecil Bolton, who was convicted September 28, 1970 of transporting a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2812, is whether the trial court erred in refusing appellant’s request for a continuance because of the absence of a defense witness. The granting of a continuance until an absent witness can be procured is, of course, within the sound discretion of the district court, and it is not error to deny a requested continuance in the absence of a showing of an abuse of that discretion. United States v. Pierce, 5th Cir. 1969, 411 F.2d 678; Barnes v. United States, 5th Cir. 1967, 374 F.2d 126; Samples v. United States, 5th Cir. 1941, 121 F.2d 263. We have carefully read the record and have not found an indication of that abuse of discretion that would require reversal. Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

438 F.2d 1219, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-roy-cecil-bolton-ca5-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack