THOMAS C. KEININGHAM, 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 frivolous and dismissed it, denying the petition for rehearing en banc.
Police observed the defendant, known for gaming violations, acting suspiciously with a briefcase. After the defendant denied ownership and suggested e…
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 Right To Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On consideration of appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc, it is
ORDERED by the court that the petition be, and it is hereby, denied.
Bazelon, Circuit Judge.
This paid appeal from a judgment of conviction was fully briefed and argued before a division of this court which considered the issues presented and entered an opinion finding them to be without merit. Instead of following the usual course of affirming the judgment of conviction, however, the court dismissed the appeal as frivolous.
Since the merits of the case were fully briefed, argued, and considered by the court, I see no significant difference in the result, as it affects appellant, between dismissal and affirmance. The critical fact is that appellant has had his day in court. If he had not, then wholly different consideration would apply. See Coppedge v. United States.1
. Until recently there was no occasion for this court to dismiss paid appeals as “frivolous” since there was no occasion for us to examine into the facts or merits until all briefs and other papers were filed and the case was argued. We usually disposed of such a case with a very short per curiam memorandum opinion.
. “Present federal law has made an appeal from a District Court’s judgment of conviction in a criminal case what is, in effect, a matter of right. That is, a defendant has a right to have his conviction reviewed by a Court of Appeals, and need not petition that court for an exercise of its discretion to allow him to bring the case before the court. The only requirements a defendant must meet for perfecting his appeal are those expressed as time limitations within which various procedural steps must be completed.” 369 U.S. 438. 441-442, 82 S.Ct. 917, 919, 8 L.Ed.2d 21 (1962).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gilbert v. United States, 366 F.2d 923 (9th Cir. 1966)
-
Pendergrast v. United States, 416 F.2d 776 (D.C. Cir. 1969)
-
Junius S. Washington v. United States, 401 F.2d 915 (D.C. Cir. 1968)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (15 total)
- Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (U.S. 1962)
- Goldsmith v. United States, 277 F.2d 335 (D.C. Cir. 1960)
- Tanzer v. United States, 364 U.S. 863 (U.S. 1960)
- Int'l Hod Carriers' Bldg. & Common Laborers' Union of Am., Local 41, AFL-CIO v. Madden, 364 U.S. 863 (U.S. 1960)
- LEE v. United States, 221 F.2d 29 (D.C. Cir. 1954)
- Dixon v. United States, 296 F.2d 427 (D.C. Cir. 1961)
- Mervin Green v. United States, 259 F.2d 180 (D.C. Cir. 1958)
- Osborne v. United States, 259 F.2d 180 (D.C. Cir. 1958)
- Eckwerth v. New York, 359 U.S. 998 (U.S. 1959)
- King v. United States, 359 U.S. 998 (U.S. 1959)