United States v. Farley
| Citation | 242 F.2d 338 |
| Decision Date | 21 February 1957 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 24577. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Charles Leo FARLEY, Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
Charles Leo Farley, pro se, and Bella V. Dodd, New York City, for appellant.
Kenneth C. Sternberg, Asst. U. S. Atty., U. S. D. C. for the Eastern District of New York, Floral Park, N. Y., for appellee.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and MEDINA and HINCKS, Circuit Judges.
Upon the remand of the case pursuant to our opinion of November 9, 1956, 238 F.2d 575, the court below assigned counsel to assist the defendant-appellant in the preparation and prosecution of a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis and, after consideration of the motion thus submitted, denied the same and certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith.
The appellant now, through counsel appointed as above stated, moves for leave to appeal in forma pauperis and for an extension of time to file the record, requesting a hearing before the court en banc. The hearing en banc is denied. Chief Judge Clark is added to the panel to which the motion has been referred, in the place of Judge Frank who was on the panel to which the prior motion was referred, and who has since died.
In accordance with the holding of this court in United States v. Farley, supra, and United States v. Johnson, 2 Cir., 238 F.2d 565, the motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is denied and the appellant's court-assigned counsel, with the thanks of the court for services hitherto furnished, is discharged from official obligation to participate further in the appeal, and the time for filing the appeal is extended to March 20, 1957 at which time the appeal shall without further order be dismissed unless the record shall have been sooner filed.
The time for rehearing having expired, we treat the motion as one for leave to file the motion. As such, it is granted and we will dispose of the motion, as though timely made, on the merits.
We see nothing in the opinion in Johnson v. United States, which was handed down by the Supreme Court on March 4, 1957, 77 S.Ct. 550, which requires any modification of our Per Curiam order of February 21, 1957. The trial court had assigned as counsel to the appellant, for his assistance in prosecuting his petition for leave to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coppedge v. United States
...for leave to appeal in forma pauperis remanded to District Court, 238 F.2d 575 (C.A.2d Cir.1956), appeal in forma pauperis denied, 242 F.2d 338, vacated, 354 U.S. 521, 77 S.Ct. 1371, 1 L.Ed.2d 1529 (1957), remanded to District Court for settling transcript (December 1960), appeal in forma p......
-
Fahy v. Horn, CIVIL ACTION No. 99-5086 (E.D. Pa. 8/26/2003), CIVIL ACTION No. 99-5086.
....... CIVIL ACTION No. 99-5086. . United" States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. . August 26, 2003. . MEMORANDUM AND ORDER . \xC2"......
-
United States v. Farley
...to renew his motion in the district court with the aid of assigned counsel. This court affirmed the denial of this second motion, 2 Cir., 242 F.2d 338; but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that his allegations of error could not be evaluated without a transcript of the trial record or st......
-
Farley v. United States 686
...permission to appeal in forma pauperis but that court denied his request indicating that his claimed errors were without substance. 2 Cir., 242 F.2d 338. And see 2 Cir., 238 F.2d As things now stand conflicting affidavits have been introduced concerning petitioner's contention of errors at ......