Young v. United States

Young v. United States, 88 F.2d 305 (10th Cir. 1937)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided: February 6, 1937
Docket: No. 1438
Citations: 88 F.2d 3051937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3109

Cited by 3

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted and sentenced on nine counts of an indictment charging offenses against the United States.

This appeal was taken on June 5, 1936. The bill of exceptions was settled and filed August S, 1936.

Rule 9 of the appellate criminal rules (28 U.S.C.A. following section 723a) in part reads:

“The appellant, within thirty (30) days after the taking of the appeal, or within such further time as within said period of thirty days may be fixed by the trial judge, shall procure to be settled, and shall file with the clerk of the court in which the case was tried, a bill of exceptions setting forth the proceedings upon which the appellant wishes to rely.”

The thirty-day period, excluding Sundays and legal holidays (see Rule 13, appellate criminal rules [28 U.S.C.A. following section 723a]), expired July 11, 1936.

The bill of exceptions recited an order made within the thirty-day period extending the time to settle and file the bill of exceptions to August 1, 1936.

The clerk has certified up an order made on July 28, 1936, undertaking to extend the time for settling and filing the bill of exceptions to August 5, 1936.

The last order, not having been made within the thirty-day period, was ineffectual. Yep v. U. S. (C.C.A.10) 81 F.(2d) 637 ; Slade v. U. S. (C.C.A.10) 85 F.(2d) 786 ; Goddard v. U. S. (C.C.A.10) 86 F.(2d) 884 ; Fewox v. U. S. (C.C.A.5) 77 F.(2d) 699 ; U. S. v. Adamowicz (C.C.A.2) 82 F.(2d) 288 ; Spero v. U. S. (C.C.A.8) 85 F.(2d) 134 ; Wolpa v. U. S. (C.C. A.8) 84 F.(2d) 829 ; Cusamano v. U. S. (C.C.A.8) 85 F.(2d) 132 .

The bill of exceptions not having been settled and filed within the time required by the rules must be stricken. See cases cited above.

All of the assignments of error are predicated on the bill of exceptions. The bill not being before us, assignments may not be considered.

The judgment is therefore affirmed. Let the mandate issue immediately.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 3 cases

View all citing references →

U.S. Courts of Appeals3

Relies on it most ⓘ

Holt v. United States94 F.2d 90 (10th Cir. 1937)
Sanford v. United States98 F.2d 325 (D.C. Cir. 1938)
Joerns v. Irvin114 F.2d 458 (D.C. Cir. 1940)

Most recent

Joerns v. Irvin114 F.2d 458 (D.C. Cir. 1940)
Sanford v. United States98 F.2d 325 (D.C. Cir. 1938)
Holt v. United States94 F.2d 90 (10th Cir. 1937)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 8

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Slade v. United States, 85 F.2d 786 (10th Cir. 1936)	24
	Fewox v. United States, 77 F.2d 699 (5th Cir. 1935)	17
	Yep v. United States, 81 F.2d 637 (10th Cir. 1936)	14
	United States v. Adamowicz, 82 F.2d 288 (2d Cir. 1936)	9
	Cusamano v. United States, 85 F.2d 132 (8th Cir. 1936)	8
	Wolpa v. United States, 84 F.2d 829 (8th Cir. 1936)	6
	Goddard v. United States, 86 F.2d 884 (10th Cir. 1936)	4
	Spero v. United States, 85 F.2d 134 (8th Cir. 1936)	2

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list