Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Russell Charles Taylor v. United States

Russell Charles Taylor v. United States, 199 F.2d 373 (6th Cir. 1952)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1952-10-27
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. The above cause coming on to be heard on the transcript of record, the 'briefs of the parties, and the argument of counsel iti open court; and it appearing that there was no error in the ■ admission of evidence or any rulings thereon by the trial court;’ and that the conviction of appellant was sustained iby • the evidence; And it appearing further that the District Court was not in error and did not-abuse its discretion in refusing to sentence appellant in accordance with the provisions of Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 5010, known as the Youth Offenders Act; and the court being duly advised; Now, therefore, it is ordered, that the judgment of the District Court be and is hereby affirmed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Russell Charles Taylor v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
TAYLOR v. UNITED STATES,199 F.2d 373(6th Cir. 1952)
Russell Charles TAYLOR, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 11590.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
October 27, 1952.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio; Frank Le Blond Kloeb, Judge.
Milton R. Henry, Pontiac, Mich., and Herman D. Stallings, Detroit, Mich., for appellant.

John J. Kane, Jr., Cleveland, Ohio, and Marcus L. Friedman, Toledo, Ohio, for appellee.
Before MARTIN, McALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The above cause coming on to be heard on the transcript of record, the briefs of the parties, and the argument of counsel in open court; and it appearing that there was no error in the admission of evidence or any rulings thereon by the trial court; and that the conviction of appellant was sustained by the evidence;

And it appearing further that the District Court was not in error and did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sentence appellant in accordance with the provisions of Title18 U.S.C.A. § 5010, known as the Youth Offenders Act; and the court being duly advised;

Now, therefore, it is ordered, that the judgment of the District Court be and is hereby affirmed.