HOLLIS BRYANT, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the appeal was not timely filed and therefore must be dismissed.
Appellant was convicted and sentenced for violations of the Dyer Act. A notice of appeal was filed after the prescribed time limit.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rules Of Criminal Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant received a sentence of fifteen years imprisonment under a six-count indictment charging violations of the Dyer Act, Sections 2312, 2313, Title 18, United States Code. The judgment was entered July 18, 1958. He was delivered to the Federal Penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia, on July 23, 1958. A notice of appeal to this court dated July 28, 1958, was filed in the Clerk's Office of the United States District Court in which he received his sentence, on August 18, 1958. The record was filed in the Clerk's Office of this Court on September 26, 1958.
Appellant has filed a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis and that he be furnished a copy of the transcript. The Government has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it was not taken within time.
The Government's motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained. Rules 37(a) (2) and 45(b), Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C. Cuckovich v. United States, 6 Cir., 170 F. 2d 89; Brant v. United States, 5 Cir., 210 F. 2d 470, and cases cited therein.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220 (U.S. 1960)
Authorities Cited
- Cuckovich v. United States, 170 F.2d 89 (6th Cir. 1948)
- Brant v. United States, 210 F.2d 470 (5th Cir. 1954)