Dunbar v. United States, 13–7300.
| Decision Date | 09 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 13–7300.,13–7300. |
| Citation | 134 S.Ct. 808 (Mem),571 U.S. 1103,187 L.Ed.2d 611 |
| Parties | Fabian DUNBAR, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
4 cases
-
United States v. Margheim
...1278 (10th Cir.) (“[T]he trial judge has no duty to consider pro se motions by a represented defendant.”), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 808, 187 L.Ed.2d 611 (2013). The record demonstrates that Mr. Margheim never actually proceeded pro se: his third attorney entered an appearance ......
-
United States v. Margheim, 12–1459.
...1278 (10th Cir.) (“[T]he trial judge has no duty to consider pro se motions by a represented defendant.”), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 808, 187 L.Ed.2d 611 (2013). The record demonstrates that Mr. Margheim never actually proceeded pro se: his third attorney entered an appearance ......
-
United States v. Margheim
...1278 (10th Cir.) (“[T]he trial judge has no duty to consider pro se motions by a represented defendant.”), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 808, 187 L.Ed.2d 611 (2013). The record demonstrates that Mr. Margheim never actually proceeded pro se: his third attorney entered an appearance ......
- United States v. Williams, 13-6147