UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
JOHN WILLIAM MAYE, APPELLANT

4th Cir. | 1970-01-16
No. 14028
421 F.2d 177 United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (1970)

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.


Holding

The court held that there were no arguable grounds for appeal and the district court committed no error in sentencing.


Facts & Procedural History

John William Maye pleaded guilty to possessing a Selective Service classification card for false identification. He appealed his eighteen-month senten…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

John William Maye was convicted on his plea of guilty of possessing a Selective Service classification card, not issued to him, with intent that it be used for the purpose of false identification and representation, in violation of 50 U.S.C. App. § 462(b)(2).

The sole issue he raises on appeal is whether the district judge erred in sentencing him for a term of eighteen months. Before sentencing, .the district judge heard testimony concerning the offense and considered Maye’s prior criminal record. The evidence disclosed that Maye was absent without leave from the army and that he used the Selective Service card for false identification. He previously had been convicted of a number of offenses.

The government has moved to dismiss this appeal. In response to the motion, Maye’s attorney has stated that he knows of no meritorious grounds for appeal, but he has nevertheless filed a brief in conformity with Anders v. Cali fornia, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Upon consideration of the motion to dismiss, the reply, the brief filed on behalf of Maye, and the entire record, we find no arguable ground for appeal. The district court committed no error in Maye’s arraignment and sentencing.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and the judgment is

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw