United States v. William Washabaugh, Jr., William David Wentroble

Ninth Circuit

United States v. William Washabaugh, Jr., William David Wentroble

435 F.2d 1298

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 6, 1970

Docket26101_1

StatusPublished

This text of 435 F.2d 1298 (United States v. William Washabaugh, Jr., William David Wentroble) 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. William Washabaugh, Jr., William David Wentroble, 435 F.2d 1298 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Lee Fee, the respondent, the Court finds as a pro-tem reporter, has committed a contempt in failing to transcribe her reporter’s notes for the record in the above cases now on appeal, and imposition of any penalty will be postponed pending observation of compliance with the following order:

The respondent Fee, effective November 9, 1970, will report to the United States Marshal for the Central District of California, Los Angeles, California, at his office in the United States Courthouse daily Monday to Friday (intervening holidays excepted), from 9:00 a. m. to 5:00 p. m., during which time she will devote herself to transcribing the record in the above case, and then she shall proceed on succeeding days under supervision of the Marshal with the other appeals in the United States Court of Appeals until she has completed all transcribing for which she has orders — until she has completed the task, and each day she will advise the Marshall as to how many pages she has completed. *

*

(The Clerk of the Central District will advise the Clerk of the Court of Appeals of the title of cases in which the respondent has incomplete transcripts. The respondent will advise the Clerk of the Court of Appeals when she has completed all transcripts for which she has orders for the Court of Appeals, and at that time she may cease reporting to the Marshal.)

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

PER CURIAM.

Lee Fee, the respondent, the Court finds as a pro-tem reporter, has committed a contempt in failing to transcribe her reporter’s notes for the record in the above cases now on appeal, and imposition of any penalty will be postponed pending observation of compliance with the following order:

The respondent Fee, effective November 9, 1970, will report to the United States Marshal for the Central District of California, Los Angeles, California, at his office in the United States Courthouse daily Monday to Friday (intervening holidays excepted), from 9:00 a. m. to 5:00 p. m., during which time she will devote herself to transcribing the record in the above case, and then she shall proceed on succeeding days under supervision of the Marshal with the other appeals in the United States Court of Appeals until she has completed all transcribing for which she has orders — until she has completed the task, and each day she will advise the Marshall as to how many pages she has completed. *

*

(The Clerk of the Central District will advise the Clerk of the Court of Appeals of the title of cases in which the respondent has incomplete transcripts. The respondent will advise the Clerk of the Court of Appeals when she has completed all transcripts for which she has orders for the Court of Appeals, and at that time she may cease reporting to the Marshal.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

435 F.2d 1298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-william-washabaugh-jr-william-david-wentroble-ca9-1970.