Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Long v. Harris

473 F.2d 1387

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1973-03-14
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. Upon docketing in this court, this case was assigned to the summary calendar. Thereafter, an attorney who participated in the four day evidentiary hearing conducted in the district court was appointed to assist the appellants. A transcript of the evidentiary hearing where the appellants all testified and were afforded complete opportunity to support their claims was obtained, and the appointed attorney thereafter submitted a memorandum in opposition to summary affirmance addressing the underlying merits. We have now carefully and thoroughly reviewed the complete record on appeal, including the transcript, and the memorandum in opposition to summary af-firmance.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Long v. Harris. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
3 opinions
LONG v. HARRIS,473 F.2d 1387(10th Cir. 1973)
JAMES X. LONG, ET AL., PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS, v. C. E. HARRIS, WARDEN,
UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY, LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS, ET AL.,
RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.
Nos. 72-1021 to 72-1023.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
March 14, 1973.
Robert E. Davis, Leavenworth, Kan., for petitioners-appellants.

Robert J. Roth, U.S. Atty., Richard L. Meyer, Asst. U.S. Atty., Topeka, Kan., for respondents-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
Before SETH, McWILLIAMS and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
[1] Upon docketing in this court, this case was assigned to the summary calendar. Thereafter, an attorney who participated in the four day evidentiary hearing conducted in the district court was appointed to assist the appellants. A transcript of the evidentiary hearing where the appellants all testified and were afforded complete opportunity to support their claims was obtained, and the appointed attorney thereafter submitted a memorandum in opposition to summary affirmance addressing the underlying merits.

[2] We have now carefully and thoroughly reviewed the complete record on appeal, including the transcript, and the memorandum in opposition to summary affirmance. We are convinced that the findings made by the district court at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing are amply supported by the record. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court, reported at332 F. Supp. 262(D.C.Kan. 1971).

[3] Affirmed.Page 196