Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Edward Lawrence O'Brien

United States v. Edward Lawrence O'Brien, 466 F.2d 517 (5th Cir. 1973)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1973-01-08
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: Edward Lawrence O’Brien was convicted by a jury of armed robbery of a federally insured savings and loan association, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (d), and sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. He appeals, contending that the trial judge erred in (1) refusing to grant a motion for continuance, and (2) in disparaging appellant and his counsel and exhibiting bias in favor of the Government in the presence of the jury. We have thoroughly examined the record, including the trial transcript, and find that the contentions of appellant are completely without merit. Affirmed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Edward Lawrence O'Brien. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
UNITED STATES v. O'BRIEN,466 F.2d 517(5th Cir. 1972)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. EDWARD LAWRENCE O'BRIEN,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 72-1359.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
September 14, 1972.
Certiorari Denied January 8, 1973.
James P. Panico, Maitland, Fla., court-appointed, for defendant-appellant.Page 518

John L. Briggs, U.S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., Alan C. Todd, Orlando, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before GEWIN, AINSWORTH and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Edward Lawrence O'Brien was convicted by a jury of armed robbery of a federally insured savings and loan association, in violation of18 U.S.C. § 2113(d), and sentenced to twenty-five years' imprisonment. He appeals, contending that the trial judge erred in (1) refusing to grant a motion for continuance, and (2) in disparaging appellant and his counsel and exhibiting bias in favor of the Government in the presence of the jury.

[2] We have thoroughly examined the record, including the trial transcript, and find that the contentions of appellant are completely without merit.

[3] Affirmed.
  1. Rule 18, 5 Cir.; See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York, et al., 5 Cir., 1970,431 F.2d 409. ↩